THE  LIBRARY 
♦        OF 
THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF.  LAW. 


STATUTES 


AND 


STATUTORY  CONSTRUCTION 


INCLUDING 

A  DISCUSSION  OF  LEGISLATIVE  POWERS.  CONSTITUTIONAL 
REGULATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  THE  FORMS  OF  LEGIS- 
LATION AND  TO  LEGISLATIVE  PROCEDURE 


BY 

J.  G.  SUTHERLAND 

Author  of  "A  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Damages' 


SECOND  EDITION 

BY 

JOHN  LEWIS 

Author  of  "A  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Eminent  Domain' 


VOLUME  I 


CHICAGO 

CALLAGHAN  AND   COMPANY 
1904 


C<  'PYRIOHT,  1904, 
BY 

CALLAGHAN  AND  COMPANY. 


JODENAL   PRINTINa   COMPANY, 

I'UINTEIt-    A'.D    StEREOTYPEBS, 
MADISON,   WIS. 


c? 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND 
EDITION. 


The  favor  which  has  been  accorded  the  first  edition  of 
this  work  by  the  profession  and  the  courts,  well  deserves  a 
new  edition,  which  is  now  offered,  with  the  hope  that  it  will 
merit  a  continuance  of  such  favor.  About  six  thousand  new 
cases  have  been  incorporated  in  the  present  edition.  No 
material  change  has  been  made  in  the  arrangement  or  plan  of 
the  work  and  the  text  of  the  first  edition  has,  for  the  most 
part,  been  preserved  without  change.  Nearly  two  hundred 
and  fifty  new  sections  have  been  added,  which  gives  some 
idea  of  the  importance  and  variety  of  the  new  cases.  Par- 
allel references  have  been  made,  in  the  notes,  to  the  Re- 
porter System,  American  Decisions,  American  Reports, 
American  State  Reports,  Lawyers'  Reports  Annotated,  The 
Federal  Cases  and  to  the  Lawyers'  Edition  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  decisions. 


John  Lewis. 


Chicago,  October,  1904. 


£&>34L 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


No  apology  to  the  profession  is  necessar}r  from  the  author 
for  offering  a  new  book  on  Statutory  Construction,  although 
it  is  a  subject  which  his  predecessors  in  the  same  work  have 
treated  in  a  masterly  manner.  It  is  a  field  in  no  danger  of 
being  over-cultivated. 

The  law  for  the  construction  of  written  contracts  and 
other  private  documents  is  as  certain  and'  well  defined  as 
upon  any  other  branch  of  legal  science.  This  is  not  equally 
true  of  the  law  for  the  construction  of  Written  Laws.  They 
deal  with  subjects  of  greater  complexity;  they  are  the  pro 
duct  of  so  many  minds,  not  having  common  views,  that  in- 
congruities cannot  be  wholly  excluded,  and  threads  of 
diverse  ideas  are  often  interwoven ;  and,  moreover,  oppos- 
ing considerations  of  broader  range  press  for  recognition  in 
their  construction.  In  many  ways  converse  rules  overlap, 
and  the  lines  of  distinction  are  faint  and  shifting. 

The  natural  tendency  and  growth  of  the  law  is  towards 
system  and  towards  certainty,  towards  modes  of  operation 
at  once  practical  and  just,  by  the  process  of  its  intelligent 
judicial  administration ;  but  this  process  is  impaired  by 
overwork  and  legislative  interference. 

When  it  is  considered  how  many  legislative  bodies  there 
are,  and  how  many  independent  courts  administer  their 
laws,  the  diversities  of  construction  which  have  occurred 


VI  PREFACE   TO    I  BE    FIRST    EDITION. 

;nv  not  surprising;  thoso  divergencies  lead  to  permanent 
contrarieties  bounded  bv  state  lines.  Under  such  circum- 
stances it  is  important  that  cognate  cases  be  often  collated 
and  their  principles  generalized,  with  a  view  to  maintain- 
ing the  domain  of  the  law  as  a  science  by  remarking-  the 
true  lines. 

The  frequent  assertion  of  sound  doctrine  with  copious 
illustrations  is  promotive  of  harmony.  The  author  has  em- 
bodied in  this  work  the  result  of  thorough  reading  of  the 
cases,  and  a  thoughtful  and  earnest  endeavor  to  extract  and 
put  in  elementary  form  their  best  teaching.  And  he  sub- 
mits it  in  the  modest  hope  that  his  fellow-practitioners  and 
the  courts  may  lind  it  useful  and  contributory  to  that  end. 

J.  G.  S. 

Salt  Lake  City, 

December,  1890. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


VOLUME  I. 


CHAPTER  L 

THE   LEGISLATIVE    POWER   AS    DISTINGUISHED    FROM    OTHER   SOVEREIGN 
POWERS,   AND  THE  GENERAL  NATURE  OF  STATUTORY  LAW. 

§  1.    The  order  of  subjects. 
2-5.    The  three  departments  of  government  and  their  respective 
functions. 

6.  The  judicial  power. 

7.  The  legislative  power. 

8.  9.    Statutory  law  in  general. 

10.  Rules  of  action. 

11,  12.    Legislative  rules  of  action  —  essential  limitations. 
13-15.    Statutes  have  no  extraterritorial  effect. 

16,  17.  Extraterritorial  operation  of  laws  in  case  of  colonization  of 
of  a  new  country. 

18,  19.  English  statutes  passed  after  the  establishment  of  the  col- 
onies. 

20.  Continuance  of  laws  after  a  change  of  sovereignty. 

21.  Laws  of  states  in  rebellion. 

22.  23.     Federal  and  state  statutes. 
24,  25.     Territorial  statutes. 

£6.     Territories  have  but  temporary  governments—  Are  in  tutelage 
to  become  states. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ENACTMENT  OF  LAWS  AND  HOW  THEIR  EXISTENCE  IS  ESTABLISHED. 

§  27.     The  legislature. 

28.  How  existence  of  statute  established  —  English  rule. 

29,  30.     Legislative  records. 

31.     Constitutional  provisions  prescribing  parliamentary  procedure. 

32-43.     Courts  holding  enrolled  act  conclusive. 

44     Courts  holding  enrolled  act    not  conclusive —  Constitutional 

provisions  as  to  procedure  mandatory. 
45.    Legislative  journals  as  evidenca 


Vlii  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

s;  46.     Unreliability  of  the  journals. 

IT,  4a     Evidenoe  bo  impeaoh  enrolled  bill  —Legislative  journals. 

Court  will  not  act  on  admission  of  parties. 
50.     Presumption  in  favor  of  enrolled  act. 
51     Enrolled  act  not  impeached  by  silence  of  journals. 
"What  Buffloient  to  impeach  enrolled  act 

Matters  which  the  constitution  expressly  requires  to  be  entered 
in  journal. 
"1.  55.     Required  reading,  printing  and  reference  of  bills. 
56.  Necessity  of  signature  of  presiding  officers. 
57-59.    How  the   question    of  the   due  passage  or  enactment  of 

statutes  is  tried. 
60,  61.     Approval  by  executive. 

63.  63.     How  a  bill  will  become  a  law  without  approval. 

64.  Presentation  to  executive  —  Veto. 

65.  Extra  sessions. 

66.  Limitation  of  time  for  introduction  of  bills  or  duration  of  ses- 

sion. 

67.  68.    Forms  of  legislation. 

69.  70.     Constitutional  provisions  as  to  enacting  style  held  directory. 
71-73.    Constitutional  provisions  as  to  enacting  style  held  manda- 
tory. 
74     Enrolled  act  conclusive  as  to  words  of  statute. 

75.  Adoption  of  code  or  revision  by  reference. 

76.  Statutes  and  legislative  rules  relating  to  the  enactment  of  laws. 

77.  Federal  courts  follow  state  courts. 
73.     Notice  of  private  and  local  bills. 

79.  Where  the  power  to  legislate  upon  a  subject  is  conditioned  upon 

the  existence  of  certain  facts. 

80.  Miscellaneous  cases  as  to  procedure  in  the  enactment  of  laws. 

CHAPTER  III. 

VALIDITY  OF    STATUTES    IN   GENERAL    AND    DELEGATION    OP  THE  LEGIS- 
LATIVE POWER. 

§  81.  The  constitution  a  limitation  —  Legislative  authority  plenary. 

82.  Presumption  in  favor  of  validity. 

83.  Statutes  construed,  if  possible,  so  as  to  be  valid. 
84  Fraud  or  conspiracy  in  passing  act. 

Considerations  of  the  justice,  wisdom  and  policy  of  statutes — 
Spirit  of  the  constitution. 
86.    When  statutes  void  for  uncertainty. 

*8.     The  legislative  power  cannot  be  delegated. 
What  is  a  delegation  of  legislative  power  —  Authority  to  make 
rules  and  regulations. 
90.    Power  to  suspend  and  put  in  force  a  statute  at  pleasure. 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS.  IX 

§  91.     Authority  to  prescribe  form  of  insurance  policy. 

92.  Acts  for  the  incorporation  of  municipalities  or  for  annexing  or 

excluding  territory. 

93.  Acts  held  to  be  a  delegation  of  legislative  power. 

94.  Acts  held  not  to  be  a  delegation  of  legislative  power. 

96-98.    Effect  of  submitting  laws  or  questions  controlling  their 

effect  to  popular  vote  of  the  state  at  large. 
99.     Cases  maintaining  the  constitutionality  of  such  acts. 

100.  The  operation  and  terms  of  an  act  may  be  made  to  depend  on 

foreign  legislation. 

101.  Effect  of  giving  president  power  to  suspend  operation  of  act 

102.  Local  laws  dependent  on  popular  vote  generally  held  valid. 

103.  Operation  of  law  dependent  upon  adoption  by  corporate  au- 

thorities. 

104.  Operation  of  general  law  dependent  upon  local  adoption. 

105.  Adoption  must  be  co-extensive  with  territory  affected  by  the 

law. 

106.  Municipalities  may  not  be  authorized  to  make  or  amend  their 

charters. 

107.  Other  decisions  on  the  validity  of  statutes. 

108.  Acts  done  under  an  invalid  statute. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  REQUIREMENT  THAT  NO  ACT  EMBRACE  MORE  THAN  ONE 
SUBJECT  AND  THAT  IT  BE  EXPRESSED  IN  THE  TITLE. 

§  109,  110.    Substantial  agreement  of  constitutional  provisions  —  Ex- 
ceptions. 
111.    The  mischief  intended  to  be  remedied  — The  purpose  of  these 

restrictive  provisions. 
112-114.    Regarded  as  mandatory. 

115.  Liberally  construed  to  sustain  legislation  not  within  the  mis- 

chief. 

116.  The  subject  or  object  of  a  statute. 

117.  The  constitution  does  not  restrict  the  scope  of  the  subject  em- 

braced by  an  act. 

118.  The  provisions  of  an  act  must  be  germane  to  one  subject 

119.  Requirement  as  to  form  or  manner  of  expressing  subject  in  title. 

120.  The  subject  in  an  act  can  be  no  broader  than  the  statement  of 

it  in  the  title. 

121.  Requisites  of  title  generally— It  need  not  index  the  details  of 

the  act. 

122.  Effect  of  "etc.,"  "and  so  forth,"  "and  for  other  purposes,"  in 

title. 

123.  Title  misleading  by  reason  of  generality. 

124.  The  title  may  be  broader  and  more  comprehensive  than  the  act 


X  TAliLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Misleading  titles. 

18ft  The  title  should  accompany  a  bill  in  its  passage  through  the 
legislature. 

107.  1881    Title  and  act  liberally  construed  to  sustain  legislation. 

189.  The  subject  or  object  stated  generally  in  the  title  includes  in- 
cidents and  subsidiary  details. 

130.  The  subject  or  object  stated  generally  in  the  title  includes  the 

abolition  of  things  inconsistent. 

131.  Where  the  title  expresses  a  general  subject  and  also  details, 

particulars  or  sub-titles. 
1;j'~-     Effect  of  title  referring  to  act  or  other  sources  of  information. 

133.  Errors  in  title,  and  whether  title  can  be  corrected  by  act  or 

otherwisa 

134.  The  subject  may  be  expressed  by  the  description  of  its  parts  or 

subdivisions. 

135.  "Words  of  act  restrained  or  qualified  by  title. 

136.  Acts  to  prohibit,  regulate,  protect,  etc.,  imply  penalties  and 

civil  liabilities. 

137.  The  title  and  subject  of  amendatory  and  supplemental  acts  — 

General  principles. 

138.  Effect  of  error  or  uncertainty  in  title  of  amendatory  act. 

139.  Effect  of  title  specifying  the  section  or  sections  to  be  amended. 

140.  Effect  of  title  indicating  the  amendments  to  be  made —Whether 

a  limitation. 

141.  Whether  title  specifying  section  is  sufficient,  without  giving 

title  or  subject  of  act  amended  — References  to  codes  and 
compilations,  official  and  otherwise. 

142.  Title   of  amendatory    acts  — Illustrations    and    miscellaneous 

cases. 

143.  Whether  an  act  embraces  a  plurality  of  subjects. 

144.  Effect  of  duplicity  of  subject  in  act  or  title. 

145.  Provisions  in  an  act  not  within  the  subject  expressed  in  the 

title  — Examples. 

146.  Acts  incorporating  or  relating  to  railroads  and  common  car- 

riers. 

147.  Acts  creating,  regulating  or  otherwise  relating  to  corporations 

in  general. 
143.     Acts  to  create  municipal  corporations  or  to  revise,  amend  or 

consolidate  their  charters. 
Arts  relating  to  light,  water,  railroads,  etc.,  in  municipalities. 
1J0.     Acta  relating  to  municipal  streets,  improvements,  buildings, 

lands, 
101.     Acts  relating  to  the  annexation  and  exclusion  of  territory  to  or 

from  municipalities. 


TABLE    CF    CONTENTS. 


XI 


152.  Miscellaneous  acts  relating  to  municipal  corporations. 

153.  Acts  relating  to  counties  and  county  seats. 

154.  Acts  relating  to  schools,  school  districts  and  education. 

155.  Acts  relating  to  offices  and  officers. 

156.  Acts  relating  to  irrigation,  drainage,  levees,  and  the  like. 

157.  Acts  relating  to  roads,  bridges,  ferries,  etc. 

158.  Acts  relating  to  courts  and  judicial  practice  and  proceedings. 

159.  Acts  relating  to  probate  law  and  the  descent  and  distribution 

of  property. 

ICO.  Acts  relating  to  e'eotions. 

161.  Acts  relating  to  taration  and  revenue. 

102.  Curative  acts  and  provisions. 

163.  Acts  relating  to  intoxicating  liquors. 

16-i.  Pure  food  laws. 

165.  Acts  relating  to  gaming,  pool-selling,  etc. 

166.  Acts  relating  to  fish,  game,  etc. 

167.  Acts  relating  to  crimes  in  general. 

168.  Acts  relating  to  convicts  and  penal  institul  ions. 

169.  Miscellaneous  cases  in  which  acts  were  held  to  conform  to  the 

constitution  as  to  title. 

170.  Miscellaneous  cases  in  which  acts  were  held  not  to  conform  to 

the  constitution  as  to  title. 

171.  Miscellaneous  points  as  to  titles. 


CHAPTER  V. 

TIME  OF  TAKING  EFFECT. 

172.  When  silent  as  to  commencement  —  Date  of  passage. 

173.  Acts  of  parliament  formerly  took  effect  from  the  first  day  of 

the  session. 

174.  The  actual  date  of  passage  adopted  in  this  country. 

175.  The  legislature  may  fix  a  future  day  for  an  act  to  take  effect. 

176.  Constitutional  provisions  regulating  the  time  of  acts  taking 

effect  —  Emei'gency  clause. 

177.  Where  the  constitution  requires  the  legislature  to  fix  the  time. 

178.  Taking  effect  on  publication. 

179.  The  precise  time  of  taking  effect  —  Fractions  of  a  day. 

180.  Acts  approved  on  the  same  day. 

181.  Time  of  taking  effect  —  Miscellaneous  cases. 

182.  When  act  provides  for  things  to  be  done  before  it  takes  effect. 

183.  Meaning  of  words  "  now,"  "heretofore,"  "hereafter,'  "from  and 

after  the  passage  of  this  act,"  etc. 

184-187.     Computation  of  time  wheu  an  act  is  to  take  effect  in  a  speci- 
fied number  of  days. 

188.     When  Sundays  are  included  or  excluded. 

b 


Xii  TAKI.K    OF    i-i'N  IK  NTS. 


CHAPTEB  VI. 


KrormiMl  NT  OT  GENERAL  Laws  \m>  THAT  THEY  BE  OF  UNIFORM  OPERA- 
TION. 

g   L89.     Tlio  constitutional  requirements. 

190.  The  .••institutional  provisions  mandatory. 

191.  When  a  general  law  on  the  subject  is  in  existence. 
Local  and  special  laws  valid  if  not  forbidden. 

193.     Peculiar  provision  in  South  Carolina. 

19 1-196.     What  are  general  laws  —  General  principles. 

What  are  laws  of  a  general  nature. 

The  uniform  operation  of  laws  of  a  general  nature. 

199.  Special  and  local  laws. 

COO.  Whether  act  general  or  special  — General  principles  — Not  a 
question  of  form. 

801  Acts  whose  operation  is  dependent  upon  local  adoption  —  Ef- 
fect of  limit  of  time  for  adoption. 

202.     Class  legislation. 

2031     ;;assification  of  subjects  for  legislation  —  General  principles. 

204.  Classification  of  municipalities  according  to  population  —  Cali- 
fornia. 

20~>.     Same  —  Minnesota. 

200.  Same  —  Missouri. 
207.     Same  —  New  Jersey. 

Same— Ohio. 

209.  Same  — Pennsylvania. 

210.  Same  —  Other  states. 

.211.     For  what  purposes  the  classification  of  municipalities  is  per- 
missible. 
"212.     Municipalities  under  special  charters. 

213.  Other  classification  of  municipalities  or  for  municipal  purposes. 

214.  Classification  based  on  existing  or  past  conditions. 

215.  Validity  of  class  not  dependent  upon  number  —  Classes  of  one 

or  a  few. 

216.  Evasive  classification  —  Examples. 

217.  Classification  of  counties  and  legislation  in  respect  thereto. 

ools,  school  districts  and  school  affairs. 
219.     Railroads 

Courts  and  judicial  procedure. 
Insurance  and  insurance  companies. 
222.     Building  and  loan  associations. 
Wages  —  Labor  —  Employees. 
Mines. 
Sunday  laws 

.intiff  an  attorney's  fi  e. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  Xlll 

§  227.    Criminal  laws. 

228.  Miscellaneous. 

229.  Amendatory  and  curative  act! 

CHAPTER  VII. 

AMENDATORY  ACTS  AND  ACTS  TO   REVIVE,   ADOPT   OR  EXTEND   THE   PRO- 
VISIONS OF  OTHER  ACTS. 

§  230.    The  constitutional  requirement  as  to  amendments  and  its  pur- 
pose. 

231.  Requisites  of  amendatory  act. 

232.  Constitutional  provisions  in  Georgia,  Nebraska  and  Tennessee. 

233.  Amendment  of  repealed  or  void  act  or  section. 

234.  Effect  of  second  amendment  of  section  which  ignores  prior 

amendment. 

235.  When  section  subdivided  into  clauses  or  paragraphs. 

236.  Discrepancy   between    amendment  specified    and    section  as 

amended. 

237.  Effect  of  amendment  "  so  as  to  read  as  follows." 

238.  Repeal  and  re-enactment  —  Construction  and  effect. 

239.  Amendments  by  implication  not  within  the  constitutional  re- 

quirement—  Acts  complete  in  themselves. 

240.  Whether  act  amendatory  within  the  constitutional  provision  — 

Illustrations. 

241.  Miscellaneous  cases  and  questions  in  regard  to  amendatory  acts. 

242.  Revival  of  law. 

243.  Constitutional  provisions  against  adopting  or  extending  the 

provisions  of  a  law. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 

§  244.  Duration  of  statutes  and  power  of  repeal. 

245.  Repealing  effect  of  an  unconstitutional  statute. 

246.  Modes  of  repeal  —  Express  or  implied  —  Effect  of  disuse. 

247.  Repeals  by  implication  —  General  rules  —  Same  not  favored. 

248.  Negative  and  affirmative  statutes. 

249.  Repealing  effect  of  affirmative  statutes  conferring  power  and 

regulating  its  exercise. 

250.  New  grant  of  part  of  power  already  possessed. 

251-253.     Repealing  effect  of  new  statutes  changing  criminal  laws. 

254.  Statutes  granting  larger  or  different  power  or  right. 

255.  Repeal  by  radical  change  of  leading  part  or  system. 

256.  Effect  of  clause  repealing  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent 

with  new  law. 

257.  Effect  of  repeal  of  statute  adopted  by  reference. 


\.\  TAM.K   OF   CON  1  BN  rS. 

>conoilement  o£  affirmative  Btatutea  —  illustrations. 

v  implication      Particular  acts  construed  —  Acta  rc- 
lating  to  the  liquor  traffic, 

e  —  Acts  relating  to  courts,  jurisdiction,  practice,  proced- 
ure, I'ti'. 

e  — Acts   relating  to  officers,   their   election,   appointment. 

removal,  fees,  compensation,  etc. 

ting  to  municipal  corporations. 
;e  — Acts  relating  to  revenue,  taxation,  bonds,  assessments, 
eta 
ie—  Acts  relating  to  married  women. 
-  tme—  Acts  relating  to  the  limitation  of  actions, 
lases. 
by  implication  avoided,  if  possible. 
sed  at  same  session  —  Provisions  in  same  act. 
Repe  il  by  revision. 
.71.     Asa  general  rule  whatever  is  excluded  from  the  revised 
act  is  repealed. 

278.  Appar  nt  exceptions  to  the  general  rule —  Effect  of  express  re- 

peal of  inconsistent  acts  and  parts  of  acts. 
Repeal  and  re-enactment  — Effect  of  re-enactment  on  interme- 
diate acts. 
.  75.     As  a  rule  general  laws  will  not  impliedly  repeal  those  which 

are  special  or  local. 
The  question  is  one  of  intent. 

Illustrations  —  Local  and  special  acts  held  to  be  repealed  by 
general  acta 
178.     Illustrations  — Local  and  special  acts  held  not  to  be  repealed 
by  general  acts. 

279.  Effect  of  constitutional  provisions  requiring  general  laws  and 

laws  of  uniform  operation  upon  repeal  of  special  by  general 

laws. 

the  later  law  which  is  potent  to  repeal. 
Effect  where  different  statutes  are  incorporated  into  a  revision. 
Effect  of  repeal  in  general 

feet  on  inchoate  rights. 
Effect  on  vested  rights. 

Ktfect  on  powers,  jurisdiction  and  pending  proceedings. 
Effect  of  repeal  of  a  penal  statute. 

auses  and  general  saving  statutes. 
Revival  by  repeal  of  repealing  statute, 
^titutional  provisions  as  to  repeals. 
Repeal  by  constitution. 
An  act  to  repeal  a  void  act. 
Construction  of  e  als. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XV 

§  293.     Errors  and  mistakes  in  express  repeals. 

294.  Effect  of  a  statute  and  its  repeal  upon  the  common  law. 

295.  Miscellaneous  points  and  cases. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

STATUTES  VOID   IN   PART. 

§  296.     Statutes  may  be  void  in  part  and  good  in  part. 

297.  General  rules  and  principles. 

298.  Rule  when  physical  severance  is  impossible— Whether  words    r 

provisions  can  be  severed  in  their  application  or  scope. 

299.  300.     The  same  question  in  case  of  criminal  statutes. 

301,  302.     The  main  purpose  being  unconstitutional  the  whole  act  vc  i  I. 

303.  When  the  void  part  is  inducement  to  or  consideration  of  residue 

of  act. 

304.  Same— Illustrations. 

305.  The  valid  part  must  be  complete  and  accord  with  the  legislative 

intent. 

306.  Effect  of  void  exceptions,  provisos,  restrictions,  etc. 

307.  When  act  intended  to  operate  as  a  whole. 

308.  Miscellaneous  acts  held  severable. 


VOLUME  II. 


CHAPTER  X. 

JUDICIAL  NOTICE   AND  PROOF  OF  STATUTES   AND  OF  FACTS   RELATING  TO 
THEIR  VALIDITY,   OPERATION   AND  CONSTRUCTION. 

§  309.     Judicial  notice  of  statutes. 

310.  Courts  will  take  notice  of  facts  that  affect  the  validity,  oper- 

ation or  construction  of  a  statute. 

311.  Judicial  notice  of  facts  relating  to  the  passage  or  existence  of 

statutes. 

312.  Judicial  notice  of  English  statutes  and  of  the  common  law. 

313.  State  statutes  in  the  federal  courts. 

314.  315.    Interpretation  of  state  and  federal  laws. 
316-319.     Foreign  statutes,  how  proved. 

320.  The  functions  of  the  court  and  jury  in  regard  to  foreign  laws. 

321,  322.     Private  statutes. 
323.     Miscellaneous  cases. 

CHAPTER  XL 

CLASSIFICATION   AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  STATUTES. 

§  324.    The  names  of  statutes. 

325.  Ancient  statutes  of  England. 

326.  Federal,  state,  territorial  and  colonial  statutes. 


xvi  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

j;  ;;■:?.  88&    Publio  and  private  .statutes. 
I  B8&    Declaratory  statutes. 
t8&     Affirmative  and  negative  statutes. 
Perceptive,  prohibitive  and  permissive  statutes. 
Prospective  and  retrospective  statutes. 
Remedial  statutes. 
7.     Penal  statutes. 
33S.     Repealing  statutes. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

PARTS  OF  A  STATUTE  AND  THEIR  RELATIONS. 

§  339.  340.     The  title. 
341,  84a     The  preamble. 

343.  The  enacting  style. 

344,  345.    The  purview  — One  part  to  be  construed  by  another. 
846.     Partial  conflict  resolved  into  an  exception. 

347,  348.     Words  expanded  or  limited  to  accord  with  intent. 
349,  350.     Effect  of  total  conflict  between  two  parts  of  an  act. 
351-357.     Provisos,  exceptions  and  saving  clauses. 

Interpretation  clauses. 
361.     Punctuation. 
303.     Headings  and  marginal  notes. 

CHAPTER  XIIL 

INTERPRETATION  AND  CONSTRUCTION  —  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 

§  363.  The  intent  of  the  statute  is  the  law. 

6  L  To  find  out  the  intent  is  the  object  of  all  interpretation. 

365.  Interpretation  and  construction  compared. 

366.  Intent  first  to  be  sought  in  language  of  statute  itself. 

367.  If  intent  plainly  expressed  it  is  to  be  followed  without  further 

inquiry. 
363.    The  entire  statute  to  be  considered  in  ascertaining  intent 

369.  General  intent  of  statute  the  key  to  meaning  of  the  parts. 

370.  The  intention  of  the  whole  act  will  control  interpretation  of  the 

parts. 

371-373.     Same  — Illustrations 

374,  375.    The  flexibility  of  words  and  clauses  to  harmonize  with  gen- 
eral intent. 

376-378.    The  literal  sense  not  controlling. 
Letter  and  intent. 

380.  Some  effect,  if  possible,  to  be  given  every  word,  clause  and  sen- 

tence. 

381.  Words  enlarged  or  restrictad  to  carry  out  intent. 
Words  deemed  inserted  to  carry  out  intent. 

33.     One  word  substituted  for  another. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XVU 

§  384.  Words  disregarded  or  eliminated. 

385.  Implied  exceptions  to  general  language. 

386.  Transposition  of  words  and  .phrases. 

387.  Particular  and  general  intent. 

388.  There  can  be  no  intent  of  a  statute  not  expressed  in  its  words. 

389.  Interpretation  of  words  and  phrases  —  General  rules. 

390.  Words  and  phrases  should  be  construed  as  they  are  generally 

understood. 

391.  Meaning  of  words  for  the  court  —  Sources  of  information. 
892.    How  general  words  construed. 

393.    Technical  words. 

394-396.    Words  having  both  a  popular  and  technical  meaning. 

397.  Use  of  the  words  "  or  "  and  "  and." 

398.  Words  having  a  special  sense  in  the  common  law. 

399.  Statutory  use  of  words. 

400.  Particular  words  and  phrases  construed. 

401.  402.    Change  of  phraseology  of  statutes. 

403.  Re-enacted  statutes  and  parts  of  statutes. 

404.  Statutes  adopted  from  other  states  or  jurisdictions. 

405.  Statutes  which  adopt  other  statutes  by  particular  or  general 

reference. 

406.  Examples  of  the  two  modes  of  adoption 

407.  Construction  and  effect  of  acts  adopting  other  acts  in  particular 

cases. 

408.  409.    Interpretation  with  reference  to  grammatical  sense. 
410-413.    Mistakes— Their  correction  and  effect. 

414-419.    Effect  of  context  and  association  of  words  and  phrases  — 

Maxim,  noscit'nr  a  sociis. 
420,  421.    Relative  and  qualifying  words  and  phrases. 
422-434.    When  general  words  follow  particular  —  Doctrine  of  ejus- 

dem  generis. 

435.  General  words  following  particular,  will  not  include  things  of  a 

superior  class. 

436.  It  is  otherwise  when  this  rule  would  leave  the  general  words 

without  effect. 
437-441.    Qualifications  and  exceptions  to  the  rule  of  ejusdem  generis. 
442.    Reddendo  singula  singulis. 
443-448.    Interpretation  as  affected  by  other  statutes  —  Acts  in  pari 

materia. 

449.  When  statutes  are  in  pari  materia. 

450,  451.    Resort  to  original  acts  in  case  of  revisions  and  codifications. 
452.    Repealed  and  invalid  statutes  may  be  considered. 

453-455.    Interpretation  with  reference  to  the  common  law. 
456.     Extraneous  facts  in  aid  of  construction. 
457-460.    Judicial  knowledge. 


1  Ar.i.i;   OF   <  ...\  i  in  is. 

Of  Facta  relative  to  foreign  states  and  nations. 

Judicial  notice  of  bistorioal  and  other  facts  relating  to  leg- 
islation. 
Judicial  knowledge  of  facts  in  general 

ngs  in  thf  legislature  —  Amendments,  debates,  conmiit- 
reports,  etc 
471.     Surrounding  facts  and  conditions  —  Mischief  to  lie  remedied. 
poraneous  construction, 
oral  usage  and  practical  construction. 
IS&    Stare  dk  rises. 

Effects  and  consequences. 
-495,     Expressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius. 
199.     Presumptions. 
•  10.     Implications  and  incidents. 
Acts  deemed  to  refer  and  apply  to  persons  and  things  within 
the  state  and  within  the  power  of  the  legislature. 
514.     Whi  te    or  public  corporations  embraced  by  general 

words  of  statute. 
Mistake  of  legislature  as  to  existence,  application  or  effect  of 

statute. 
Miscellaneous. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

STRICT  CONSTRUCTION. 

S  jlT-"il9.     Literal  and  strict  construction  compared. 
instruction  of  penal  statutes. 
Courts  will  not  by  the  strict  construction  of  penal  statutes 

defeat  the  intention  of  the  law-maker. 
What  statutes  are  penal. 
.Miscellaneous  cases  on  the  construction  of  penal  .statutes 
Revenue  laws. 
.     Statutes  which  impose  burdens  —  Taxes. 

mption  from  taxation  or  other  general  burden. 
541,     Acts  delegating  the  power  of  taxation, 
against  common  right. 
of  limitations. 
i  ions  as  to  new  trials  and  appeals, 
itutes  interfering  with  legitimate  in  lusl 
547.    Statutes  creating  liability. 
Public  grants. 

of  franchises  and  privileges. 

ants  of  land  in  aid  of  railroads  and  for  other  purposes. 
ating  municipal  corporations  or  granting  power  tb 

tion  of  particular  powers  to  municipal  corpora- 
tions 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XIX 

§  554-557.     Acts    creating    private    corporations    or    granting    power 
thereto. 
558.     Public  grants  in  general. 

559-561.     Statutes  for  exercise  of  power  of  eminent  domain, 
562-567.    Statutes  granting  power. 
568-570.     Jurisdiction  of  courts. 
571,  572.    Statutory  rights. 

573-575.    Statutes  in  derogation  of  the  common  law. 
576-579.     Interpretation  clauses. 

580.  Retrospective  laws. 

581.  Construction  of  acts  affecting  previous  statutory  policy, 

CHAPTER  XV. 

LIBERAL  CONSTRUCTION. 

§  582.     General  statement  of  the  subject. 

583-586.     Remedial  statutes  to   be  liberally  construed  — "What  are 

remedial  statutes. 
587,  588.     Equitable  construction. 
588-590.     What  is  liberal  construction. 
591-604.     Illustrations  of  liberal  construction. 
€05-609.     Casus  omissus. 

,  CHAPTER  XVL 

DIRECTORY  AND  MANDATORY  STATUTES. 

§  610.     Preliminary  explanation  of  directory  and  mandatory  statutes 
61L     Whether  statute  directory  or  mandatory  —  General  considera- 
tion. 
"612-616.     Provisions  directory  as  to  time. 
€17.    Time  provisions  held  mandatory. 
618-631.     Formal  and  incidental  requirements  directory. 
632,  633.     Statutes  which  confer  new  right,  privilege,  etc. 
634-636.     Statutes  which  are  permissive  in  form. 
637,  638.     Permissive  statutes  held  mandatory. 

639.  Permissive  statutes  held  not  mandatory. 

640.  The  words  "may"  and  "shalL" 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

RETROACTIVE  STATUTES. 

§  641.    Retroactive  statutes  regarded  with  disfavor. 
642,613.    Statutes  operate  prospectively  only  unless  intent  clear  to 
the  contrary. 

644.  Acts  relating  to  husband  and  wife. 

645.  Acts  relating  to  taxation. 


XX  TABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 

'.    If  isoellaneous  oaa 
c>i7.    Retrospective  statutes  not  necessarily  invalid. 

Oonstitutonal  provisions  forbidding  retrospective  or  retroactive 
laws. 

I",  10,  650.      K.r  post  fadO  laws. 

051.     Acts  relating  to  procedure  only  —  General  principles, 

853.     Particular  acts  held  to  be  c.v  post  facto. 

Particular  acts  held  not  to  be  ex  post  facto 
654     Acts  relating  to  evidence. 

655.  Acts  in  relation  to  jurisdiction  —  Change  of  venue,  etc. 

656.  Acts  relating  to  practice  and  procedure. 

657.  Habitual  criminals  statutes. 

i     Change  of  punishment  by  subsequent  legislation. 
659.     Changing  the  mode  of  executing  sentence. 
660-664.     Laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 
665-668.     Change  of  remedy. 

669.  Whether  judgment  a  contract. 

670.  Acts  held  not  to  impair  contracts. 
671-673.     Vested  rights  inviolable. 

674.     Remedial  statutes  may  apply  to  past  transactions  and  pending. 

cases. 
675-677.     Curative  statutes. 

CHAPTER  XVIIL 

CONSTRUCTION   OF  PARTICULAR  STATUTES. 

Scope  and  explanation  of  chapter. 
679-6S1.     Remedial  statutes  in  general. 
Arbitration  statutes. 

189.     Acts  relating  to  judicial  procedure,  pleading,  practice,  etc. 
Jl.     Mechanics'  lien  statutes. 
692.     Other  lien  laws. 

Exemption  statutes. 
i.     Attachment  and  garnishment  statutes. 
695-701.     Civil  damage  acts. 

Statutes  of  limitation. 
Acts  changing  the  period  of  limitation. 
708.     Whether  rights  once  barred  may  be  revived. 
'.     Election  and  ballot  laws. 

710.  Statutes  giving  an  action  for  wrongful  death. 

711.  Married  women's  acts. 

712.  Other  acts  relating  to  husband  and  wife. 
718.     Game  laws. 

71 L     Acts  relating  to  public  officers,  their  qualifications,  compensa- 
tion, election,  eta 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXI 

§  715.  Statutes  requiring  majority  vote. 

716.  Words  and  provisions  relating  to  time  and  its  computation. 

717.  Statutes  relating  to  appeals,  writs  of  error,  etc. 

718.  Statutes  relating  to  costs. 

719.  Conflicting  petitions  for  the  organization  of  territory  and  the 

like. 

720.  Statutes  giving  new  rights  and  remedies. 

721.  Miscellaneous. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


A. 

Aaron  v.  State,  40  Ala.  307:  555, 
561,  682. 
v.  State,   34  Tex.   Crim.    App. 
103:  470. 
Abbotsford,  The,  98  U.  S.  440:  758, 

930. 
Abbot  v.  Wood,  22  Me.  541:  990, 
991. 
v.  Middleton,  7  H.  L.  Cas.  68: 
699,  747. 
Abeel  v.  Clark,  84  Cal.  226:  210. 
Abel    v.  Douglass,  4    Denio,  305: 
610. 
v.  Lee,  L.  R.  6  C.  P.  371:  793. 
v.  Minneapolis,   68    Minn.    89: 
917,  918,  1311. 
Aberdare  Local  Board  v.  Hamrnelt, 

L  R.  10  Q.  B.  162:  1108. 
Abernathy  v.  Michel!,  113  Ga.  127: 
239,  441,  797,  801. 
v.  State,  78  Ala.  411:  465. 
Abington   v.  Cabeen,  106  111.  200: 
221,  258. 
v.  Duxbury,  105  Mass.  287:  641. 
Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506:  39. 
Abley  v.   Dale,  11  C.  B.  378:  702, 

704,  705. 
Acker  v.  Acker,  81  N.  Y.  143:  505. 
Ackerson  v.  Supervisors,  72  Hud, 

616:  4G7. 
Ackley   School  Dist.   v.  Hall,  113 

U.  S.  135:  222,  275. 
Adam  v.  Stephens,  88  Ky.  443:  468. 


Adam  v.  Wright,  84  Ga.  720:  457, 

565,  566. 
Adams  v.  Abram,  38  Mich.   302: 

1306. 
v.  Ackerlund,  168  111.  632:  39. 
v.  Bank  of  Oxford,  78  Miss.  532: 

899,  90G. 
v.  Beloit,  105  Wis.  363:  174,  360, 

393. 
v.  Field,  21  Vt.  266:  930. 
v.  Foster,  20  John.  452:  941. 
v.  Lockwood,     30    Kan.     773: 

1049. 
v.  Nashville,  95  U.  S.  19:  614. 
v.  New  York,    192  U.   S.  585: 

614. 
v.  Oaks,  20  John.  282:  941. 
v.  San   Angelo   W.  W.  Co.  86 

Tex.  485:  193,  271,  920. 
v.  Saratoga,  etc.  R.  Co.  10  N.  Y. 

328:  1040. 
v.  Sleeper,  64  Vt.  544:  707,  722. 

1131. 
v.  Smith,  6  Dak.  94:    402,  407. 
v.  State,  156  Ind.  596:  19. 
v.  Turrentine,  8  Ired.   L.  147: 

748,  757,  864. 
v.   Tyler,   121  Mass.  380:  1102. 
v.   Webster,  26  La.  Ann.  142: 

221,  251. 
v.  Yazoo,    etc,    R.  R.  Co.   75 

Miss.  275:  694,  708,  713, 722, 

723,  1003. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Owensboro, 
85  Ky.  265:  527. 


IMV 


TABLE    OF   CASKS   OITBD. 


Tho  reforoncea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  W08;  Vol.  II,  pp.  (505-1315. 


Adamsonr.  Davis,  47  Mo.  268:  20. 
Adkinson   v.   Handle,  93  Ky.  310: 

710.  780,  711. 
Adjutant    General    v.    Dossee,    9 

Adler  v.  State,  55  Ala.  16:  1276. 
tnce  Thresher  Co.  v.  Esteb,  41 
Ore.  169:  464, 
Aeohternacht     v.    Watmough,    8 

Watts  &  S.  1G2:  987. 
Aerated  Bread  Co.  v.  Gregg,  L.  R 

^  Q.  B.  355:  748,  755. 
.Etna  Ins.  Co.   v.  Harvey,  11  Wis. 
894:  938. 
v.  New  York,   153  N.  Y.  331: 
1165. 
Aff holder  v.  State,  51  Neb.  91:  216, 
217. 

■.  People.  20  Colo.  348:1001. 
Ah  Hoy,  Ex  parte,  23  Ore.  89:  711, 

56,  97ft 
Ah  King  v.  Police  Court,  139  Cal. 

2 17. 
Ahl  v.  Rhoads,  84  Pa.  St.  319:  640. 
Aicard  v.  Daly.  7  La.  Ann.  612:  899. 
Aikin  v.   Western  R.   R.  Co.  20  N. 

Y.  370:  884 
Aikman  v.  Edwards,  55  Kan.  751: 

301,  446. 
Airy  v.  People.  21  Colo.  144:  300. 
Alabama,  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

Misa  209:  760,861,  1291. 
Alabama  Great  So.   R.  R   Co.  v. 
Fowler.  101  Ga.  148:  963. 
v.  Reed,  124  Ala.  253:    133,  221. 
Alabama    In«.   Co.    v.   Boykin,   38 

Ala.  510:  1231. 
Alabama  Med.  Coll.  v.   Muldon,  46 

Ala.  603:  544, 
Alabama  State  Land  Co.  v.  Beck, 

Ala  71:   :219. 
Albany  v.  Gilbert,  144  Mo.  221:  16ft 
.Mayor,  82  Ga  30:  230. 

2:51  • 
Albert  v.  Twohig,  85  Neb.  563:  511. 


Alherts  v.  Torrent,  98  Mich.  513: 
1299. 

Albertson  v.  Robeson,  1  Dall.  9:  310. 

v.  State,  9  Neb.  429:  541,  668. 
Albion   v.  Maple  Lake,  71   Minn. 

503:  626. 
Albion  Nat.  Bank  v.  Montgomery, 

54  Neb.  681:  770. 
Albon   v.  Pyke,  4  M.  &   Gr.    424: 

1052. 
Albright  v.  Fisher,  164  Mo.  56:  5, 12, 
v.  Lapp,  26  Pa.  St.  99:  947. 
v.  Payne,  43  Ohio  St.  8:  688. 
v.  Sussex  Co.  L.  &  P.  Com.,  6^ 
N.  J.  L.  523:  247,  363,  368, 
408,1117,  1120. 
Alcorn  v.  Hamer.  38  Miss.  652:  146. 

164,  170,  171. 
Alderman  v.  Phelps,  15  Mass.  225: 

336. 
Aldrich    v.  Columbia  Ry.  Co.,  39 
Ore.  263:  541. 
v.  Parnell,  147  Mass.  409:  1275. 
Aldridge  v.  MardoC,  32  Tex.  204: 
732. 
v.  Tuscumbia,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  2 

St.  &  P.  199:  1217. 
v.  Williams,  3  How.  9:  882,  883. 
Allegheny  Co.  v.  Howe's  Case,  77 

Pa,  St.  77:  251,581. 
Alexander  v.  Alexander,  85  Va.  353: 
934. 
v.  Bennett,  60  N.  Y.  204:  1051. 
v.  Burnham.  18  WTis.  199:  871. 
v.  Duluth,  57  Minn.  47:  393,  593. 
v.  Duluth,  77   Minn.  445:   363, 

372,  398. 
v.  Saulsbury.  37  Ala.  375:  1062, 

1294. 
v.  State,  56  Ga.  478:  931. 
v.  State,  9  Ind.  337:  442,  443. 
v.  Worthington,  5  Md.  471:  660, 
698,  699. 
Alexandria  Co.  Sup'rs  v.  Alexan- 
dria, 95  Va.  469:  275. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


XXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Alferitz  v.  Borgwardt,  126  Cal.  2C1: 

907. 
Alina,  The,  5  Ex.  Div.  227:  814. 
Alina,  The,  5  Prob.  Div.  138:  814. 
Alkins  v.  Jupe,  2  C.  R.  D.  375:  049. 
Allaire  v.  Howell  Works  Co.  14  N. 

J.  L.  21:  986. 
Allardt  v.  People,  197  111.  501:  209, 

427. 
Allen  v.  Allen,  114  Wis.  615:  1117, 
1119. 
v.  Bernards  Tp.  57  N.  J.  L.  303: 

202,  230,  585,  1159. 
v.  Board  of  State  Auditors,  122 

Mich.  324:  131. 
v.  Colburn.  65  N.  H.  37:  1164, 

1220,  1295. 
v.  Forest,  8  Wash.  700:  1216. 
v.  Glynn,  17  Colo.  338:  1290. 
v.  Hall,  14  Bush  85:  283. 
v.  Hirsch,  8  Ore.  412:  624. 
v.  Hopkins,  62  Kan.  175:  227. 
v.  Louisiana,  103  U.  S.  80:  579, 

592. 
v.  Manasse,  4  Ala.  554:  1098. 
v.  Massey,  17  Wall.  351:  614. 
v.  Parish,  3  Ohio,  198:  729. 
v.  Pioneer  Press,  40  Minn.  117: 

369,  386,  422. 
v.  Ramsey.  1  Met.  (Ky.)  635:  778. 
v.  Reed,  10  Okl.  105:  42. 
v.  Roundtree,  1  Spears.  80: 1278. 
v.  Russell,  39  Ohio  St.  336:  688. 
v.  Salem,  10  Ind.  App.  650:  468. 
v.  Savannah,  9  Ga.  286:  912. 
■v.  Scharinghausen,  8  Mo.  App. 

229:  879. 
v.  Schweigert,  110  Ga.  323: 1258. 
v.  Stevens,  29  N.  J.  L.  509:  986. 
v.  Tison,  50  Ga.  374:  221,  245. 
v.  Watson,  2  Hill  (S.  C.)  319: 

611,  612,  619. 
v.  Young,  76  Me.  80:  716,  1297. 
.  Allen,  Ball  &  Co.  v.  Mayor,  9  Ga. 
286:  788. 


Allen's    Appeal,  81*  Pa.   St.   302: 

820. 
Allen's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  196:  748, 

757,  864. 
Allentown  v.  Hower,  93    Pa.    St. 

332:  633. 
Allerton  v.  Monona  Co.,  Ill  Iowa, 

560:  1167,  1225. 
Alley  in  Kutztown,  2  Woodw.  Dec. 

(Pa.)  373:  638. 
Allhusen  v.  Brooking,  L.  R.  26  Ch. 

Div.  564:  1160,  1224. 
Ailing  v.  Wenzel,  133  111.  264:  706. 
Allison  v.  Crocker,  67  N.  J.  L.  596: 

381,  437,  439. 
Allman  v.  Owens,  31  Ala.  167:  876. 
Allor  v.  Wayne  Co.  Auditors,  43 

Mich.  76:  219,  652. 
Allsop  v.  Day,  7  H.  &  N.  463:  1065. 
Alma  Spinning  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  16 

Ch.  Div.  686:  911,  915. 
Almy  v.  Harris,  5  John.  175:  636, 

638,  917,  1057,  1058. 
Aloe  v.  Fidelity  Mut.  L.  Ass'n,  164 

Mo.  675:  857,  858. 
Alsbath  v.  Phil  brick,  50  N.  J.  L. 

581:  378. 
Alter  v.  Shepherd,  27  La.  Ann.  207: 

1001,  1096. 
Altmeyer  v.  Caulfield,  37  W.  Va. 

847:  1059,  1261. 
Altoona  v.  Calvert,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

362:  530. 
Altrincham    Union     v.     Cheshire 

Lines  Com.,  L.  R.  15  Q.  B.  Div.  597: 

634. 
Alvord  v.  Lent,  23  Mich.  372:  704. 
v.  Lent,  33  Mich.  369:  1258. 
v.  Little,  16  Fla.  158:  19. 
Ambler  v.  Whipple,  139  111.   311: 

717,  731,  815,  830,  831. 
Ambrosewf,   In  re,   109  CaL   264: 

484. 
American  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Rain- 
bolt,  48  Neb.  434:  135,  1161,  119L 


•  ■ill-  D. 


Tin'  :  n,  p] 


nter,  l  Pet 

rican  Ini  -  .  Thayer,  7 

11  GO. 
American  L.  &  S.  Co.  v.  Minn.  etc. 
K.  R.  Co.,  157  III.  641;   1158. 

.    Mauganese  Co.   v.   Va. 

Ma  >1   Va.  372:  815. 

Net    &    Twine    Co.    v. 

Worthington,  141  U.  S.  4G8:  883, 

rican  PrintingHouse  v.  Dupuy, 
La.  Ann.  18S:  204. 
rican   Print    Works  v.   Law- 
re  J.  L.  590:  577,  621. 

'.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
>S     olo.  119:  1158. 

rican  Surety  Co.  v.  Great  W. 
S.  Co.,  58  X.  J.   L.  E 
Ann  rican    Transportation    Co.    v. 
Mich.  368:  818,  819. 
ricus  v.  Perry,  111  Ga.  S71;  7, 
140   266. 

v.  Martin,  6  Wis.  361:  1007. 
v.   McCamber,   124    Mae 

622. 
v.  U.  P.  R  R.  Co.,  64  Fed.  165: 
78,  92,  127. 
ry  v.  Hinds,  48  X.  Y.  57:  641. 
v.  Watertown,  130  U.  S.  301: 

le  v.  Patch.  3  Pick.  360:  042. 
na  v.  Becker,  3  Pa.  Dist. 

1  v.  People,  106  111.  App.  558: 

v.  Anderson,  23  Tex. 

v.   Chicago,   etc.    Ry.    Co.,    85 
Minn.  337:   1038. 

alth,    18    Gratt. 
447. 


Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheal 

■•.  Folger,  11  La.  Ann.  269:  86a. 
v.  J I  ill.  :.l  Micdi.  177:  212. 
v.  Hill,  12  X.  J.  L.  351:  528. 
v.  Levely,  58  Md.  192:  146,  945, 

946. 
v.  Levyson,  1  Tex.   App.  520: 

518. 
v.  Manchester  F.  Ass'n  Co..  59 

Minn.  182:  154. 
v.  Mayfield,  9:'.  Ky.  230:  1117, 

1119. 
v.  O'Donnell,  29  S.  C.  355:  32$, 

1174. 
v.  Seymour,  70  Minn.  358:  30%. 

429,  846,  1169,  1225. 
v.  Trenton,  42  X.  J.  L.  4S6:  377. 
v.  Whatcom  Co.,  15  Wash.  47: 

27.-.. 
v.  Win  free,  85  Ky.  597:  929. 
Anderton  v.   Milwaukee,  82  Wis. 

279:  209. 
Andrew  Co.  v.  Schell,  135  Ma  31: 

717,  722,  846,854. 
Andrews  v.  Ada  Co.,  7  Idaho,  453: 
234. 
v.  Beano.  15  R.  I.  451:  797, 1210>„ 

1234. 
v.  Herriot,  4  Cow.  508:  23. 
v.  Hoxie.  5  Tex.  171:  610,  62?. 
v.  King,  77  Me.  224:  932. 
v.  Knox  Co..  70  111.  65:  607,     ' 
v.  People,  75  111.  605:  510. 
v.  Russell,  7  Black f.  474:  550. 
v.  Schott,  10  Pa.  St.  47:  1005. 
v.  Shaffer,  12  How.  Pr.  441 :  940 
v.  United  States,  2  Story,  20?. 
645,  959,  964. 
Angele  de  Sentamanat  v.  Soule,  3¥ 

La.  Ann.  609:  797. 
Angell  v.  Cass  Co.,  11  X.  D.  265:  577, 
602. 
t.  West   Bay   City,   117  Mich. 
685:  1159,  1167. 


TABLE   OF   CASES   CITED. 


XXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315 


Anglo-Greek  Steam  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R 

2Eq.  1:  816. 
Anheuser-Busch  Brewing  Ass'n  v. 

Bond,  66  Fed.  653:  1161,  1192. 
Annan  v.  Houck,  4  Gill,  332:  1084. 
Annapolis  v.  State.  30  Md.  112:  190. 
Anna,  The,  L.  R.  1  P.  Div.  259:  891, 

893. 
Anness  v.  Providence,  13  R.  L  17: 

1019. 
Ann,  The  Brig,  1  Gall.  61:  308. 
Anonymous,  2  Hill,  375:  335,  336, 

337. 
Anonymous,  2  Stew.  228:  1227. 
Anonymous,  1  Strange,  86:  337. 
Ansley  v.  Meikle,  81  Ind.  260:  619. 
Antelope,  The,  10  Wheat.  66:  25. 
Anthony  v.  State,  29  Ala.  27:  778. 
Antony  v.  Cardenham,  Fortes.  309: 

1039. 
Aplin  v.  Baker,  84  Mich.  113:  1306. 

v.  Stiles,  83  Mich.  400:  247. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Western  Md. 

R.  R.  Co.,  50  Md.  275:  462,  1159, 

1219. 
Apple  v.  Apple,  1  Head,  348:  748, 

707,  861 
Appleton  W.  W.  Co.  v.  Appleton, 

116  Wis.  363:  392,  511,  903. 
Aranzo  v.  Mudie,  10  Ex.  203:  1042. 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  Case, 

2  Rep.  460:  830. 
Archer  v.  Ellison,  28  S.  C.  238:  689. 
Arding  v.  Bonner,  2  Jur.  (N.  S.)  763: 

881. 
Argand  Ref.  Co.  v.  Quinn,  39  W. 

Va.  535:  731. 
Argenti  v.  San  Francisco,  16  Cal. 

282:  1033. 
Arguello  v.  United  States,  18  How. 

550:  606. 
Aritt  v.  Elmore,  2  Bailey,  595:  1281. 
Arkle  v.  Commissioners,  41  W.  Va. 

471:  6,  10. 


Armsv.  Ayer,  192  111.  601:  157,300, 

428. 
Armstrong  v.   Berreman,   13  Ind. 
422,  432. 
v.  Mayer,  60  Neb.  423:  236,  452, 

917,  1311. 
v.  Ross,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  109:  1142. 
v.  Toler,    11    Wheat.  258:  938. 
v.  United  States,  1  Pet  C.  C. 
46:  1134. 
Arnold  v.  Arnold,  140  Ind.  199: 1076, 
1295. 
v.  Cambridge,  106  Mass.  353: 

757. 
v.   Council  Bluffs,  85  Iowa.  441 : 

530,  745,  955. 
v.  Kelley,  5  W.  Va.  446:  19,  343. 
v.  Nye,  23  Mich.  286:  331. 
v.  U.  S.,  9  Cranch,  104:  321,  329, 
672. 
Arnoult   v.  New  Orleans,  11   La. 

Ann.  54:  432. 
Arthur  v.  Adam,  49  Miss.  404: 1131. 
v.  Bokenham,  11  Mod.  150:  863. 
v.  Dodge,  101  U  S.  34:  521. 
v.  Homer,  96  U  S.  137:  463, 466. 
v.  Morrison,  96  U.  S.  108:  703, 
755. 
Artman  v.  Ferguson,  73  Mich.  146: 

1296. 
Arundel  v.  McCulloch,  10  Mass.  70: 

1040,  1044. 
Ash  v.  Thorp,  65  Kan.  60:  211,  249, 

275,  339. 
Ashbrook  v.  Schaub,  160  Mo.  107: 

127. 
Ash  bury  Co.  v.  Riche,  L.  R.  7  H.  L. 

653:  817. 
Ashford  v.  Watkins,  70  Ala,  156: 

626. 
Ashland  Sav.  Bank  v.  Bailey,  66  N. 

H.  334: 1229. 
Ashland  Water  Co.  v.  Ashland  Co., 
87  Wis.  209:  442. 


XXV111 


TABLE    "l     tasks   CITED. 


Tho  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-606;  Vol.  II,  pp,  cor.  1815. 


Uhley,  Appellant,  »  Piok,  81:  517, 

Ashley  v.  Harrington,  1  D.  chip. 
Ml. 
\    Martin.59  Ala  587:  878 
I  Piok.  88:  888 
-..  Goodwin.  2  Satk.  684 

Aspinwall  v.  Daviess  Co.,  22  How, 

Asplin  v.   Blackman,  7  Ex.  386 
1 14ft 

Assessors  v.  Osbornes,  9  Wall.  567 

1169. 
Assignment  of  Gilbert,  94  Wia  108 

. 
Astor  v.  Arcade  Rj-.  Co.,  113  N.  Y, 

93:  191,  221,  234,  264. 
At'-heson  v.  Everett,  1  Cowp.  391 

1075,  1086,  1108. 
Atchison,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Haynes, 
8  Okl.  576:  528,  530. 
v.  Kearney   Co.,   58    Kan.    19 

275. 
v.  Matthews,  58  Kan.  447:  414. 
v.  Matthews,  174  U.  S.  96:  371, 

414. 
v.  Tanner,  19  Colo.  559:  988. 
Atkin  v.  Kansas,  191  U.  S.  207:  417, 

1194 
Atkins  v.    Disintegrating    Co.,  18 
Wall.  272:  659,693,722,730. 
v.  Kinnan,  20  Wend.  241:    1046, 
11:37. 
Atkinson  v.  Atkinson,  15  La.  Ann. 
191:  611. 
v.  Duffy,  16  Minn.  49:   190,  203, 

218,  221. 
v.  Dunlap,  50  Me.  Ill:  19,  641. 
v.  Rhea  7  Humph.  59:  1117. 

1  ityS.  T.  Ry.  Co.,  80 
266. 
Atlanta  Savings  Bank  v.  Spencer, 
107  G&  689:  841. 


Atlantic  City  W.  W.  Co.  v.  Con- 
sumers W.  Co.,  44  N.  J.  Eq.  427: 
136.  369,  877,  389. 
Atlantic  &  D.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  101 

Va.  1:  890. 
Attorney-General    v.    Abbot,    121 
Mich.  540.  1301. 
v.  Amos,  60  Mich.  372:  265. 
v.  Anglesea,    58  N.  J.  L.  372: 

396. 
v.  Bailey,  1  Ex.  281:  755. 
v.  Baker,  9  Rich.  Eq.  521:   1115. 
v.  Bank,  5   Ired.  Eq.  71:  888, 

893. 
v.  Bolger,  128  Mich.  355:    231, 

23a 

v.  Brown,  1  Wis.  513:   457,  636. 

v.  Brunst,  3  Wis.  787:  784. 

v.  Chelsea  W.  W.  Co.,  Fitzgib. 

195:  541,  669. 
v.  Commissioner,  117 Mich.  477: 

518. 
v.  Day,  1  Ves.  Sr.  221:  1101. 
v.  Detroit,  78  Mich.  545:  140. 
v.  Detroit,  etc.  Co.,  2  Mich.  138: 

709,  731. 
v.  Detroit,   etc.  Plank  R.  Co., 

97  Mich.  589:  112,  113. 
v.  Donaldson,  10  M.  &  W.  117: 

931. 
v.  Edison  Telephone  Co.,  L.  R. 

6  Q.  B.  D.  244:  1036. 
v.  Erie,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  55  Mich. 

21:  625. 
v.  Gramlich,  129  Mich.  630:  577. 
v.  Joy,  55  Mich.  94:   72, 124, 228. 
v.  Kwok-A-Sing,  L.  R.  5  P.  C. 

179:  663.  729. 
v.  Lamplough,  L.  R.  3  Ex.  D. 

223:  545. 
v.  Lock  wood,  9  M.  &  W.  391: 

484,  730,  793. 
v.  Middleton,  3  H.  &  N.   138: 

999. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


XXIX 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  "Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Attorney-General    v.   Netherlands 

Ins.  Co.,  181  Mass.  522:  21. 

v.  Parsell,   100    Mich.  170:   90, 

518,  522. 
v.  Pitcher,  183  Mass.  513:  964. 
v.  Powis,  Kay,  186:  748. 
v.  Preston,  56  Mich.  181:  893. 
v.  Primati,  1  Jebb  &  Symes, 

317:  886. 
v.  Rice,  64  Mich.  385:  214,  215. 
v.  Saggers,  1  Price,  182:  956. 
v.  Sillem,  2  H.  &  C.  431:  699, 

703,  710,  882,  884,  960,  961. 
v.  Smith,  31    Mich.   359:    909, 

1072. 
v.  Stewart,  2  Merio.  162:  610. 
v.  Tuckerton,  67  N.  J.  L.  120: 

61,  12a 

v.  Weymouth,  1  Amb.  20:  648. 

v.  Williams,  178  Mass.  330:  135. 

Atwater  v.  Schenck,  9  Wis.  160:  872. 

Atwell  v.  Grant,  11  Md.  104:  552, 

1231. 
Aubert  v.  Maze,  2  B.  &  P.  371:  938. 
Auditor  v.  Atchison,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
6  Kan.  500:  5,20,148. 
v.  Cain,  22  Ky.  L.  R.  1888:  889, 

891. 
v.  Haycraft,  14  Bush,  284:  99, 
882. 
Auditor-General  v.  Bay  Co.  Suits., 
106  Mich.  662:  1159, 1166. 
v.  Board  of  Suprs.,  76  Mich.  295: 

1159,  1166. 
v.  Supervisors,  89  Mich.  552:  47 
78,  81,  84. 
Augusta  v.  Sweeney,  44  Ga.  463: 

1194. 
Augusta  Nat.  Bank  v.  Beard,  100 

Va.  687:  466. 
Augusta  &  S.  R.   R.  Co.   v.  City 

Council,  100  Ga.  701:  1028. 
Aurora,  Cargo  of  Brig,  v.  U.  S.,  7 
Cranch,  382:  161,  607. 


Aurora,  etc.  Turnpike  v.  Holthouse, 

7  Ind.  59;  641. 

Ausman  v.  Veal.  10  Ind.  355:  877. 

Austin  v.  Aldermen,  7  Wall.  694: 

585. 

v.  Bunyard,  6  B.  &  S.  687:  914. 

v.  Carter,   1    Mass.   230:    1039, 

1044. 
v.  Gulf,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  45  Tex. 

234:  852. 
v.  McCall,  95  Tex,  565:  227,  937, 

1031. 
v.  Murray,  16  Pick.  121:  1019. 
v.  State,  71  Ga.  595:  959. 
v.  State,  101  Tenn.  563:  585. 
v.  Stevens,  24  Mo.  520:  642. 
Averill   v.   Perrott,  74  Mich.  296: 

1054. 

Avery    v.   Groton,  36    Conn.    304: 

1041,  1086. 

v.  Pixley,  4  Mass.  460;  756. 

v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  69:  337. 

Ayars  v.  Westfield,  122  Pa.  St.  266: 

383. 
Aycock    v.    Martin,    37    Ga,    124: 
1210. 
v.  Rutledge,  104  Ga.  533:  341. 
Alyeridge  v.  Town  Com'rs,  60  Ga. 

40o:  253,  261. 
Ayers   v.  Knox,  7  Mass.  306:  603, 
674,  722,  1102. 
v.  Methodist  Ch.  etc.,  3  Sandf. 
368,  610. 

B. 

Babcock  v.  Goodrich,  47  CaL  488: 
939. 
v.  New  J.  Stockyard  Co.,  20  N. 
J.  Eq.  296:  1035. 
Baca  v.   Bernalillo  Co.  Comm.,  10 

N.  M.  438:  462,  739,  797. 
Bach   v.  Smith,  2  Wash.  Ty.  145: 
938. 


XXX 


TABLE   OF    OASES    OITI  D. 


The  references  ire  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-008;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Baohman    v.  Brown,  57   Mo.  App. 

v.  Chrisman,   03    Pa.   St    162; 

Baokee  v.   Dant,  55  Ind.  181:548, 

Backus   v.   Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  19: 

119a 

m  v.   Kennedy,  50  Mich.  329: 

331. 

v.  Savannah,  105  Ga.  02:   1230. 

v.  Tax   Com'rs,    120  Mich.  22: 

749,  701,  999. 

Baoot,  Ex  parte,  30  S.  C.  125:  303. 

Badger   v.  Inlet  Swamp  Dr.  Disk, 

111.  A)  p.  79:  1070. 
Baer  v.   Choir,  7   Wash.   631:  518, 

522. 
Baggaley  v.   Pittsburg,   etc.   Iron 

Co.,  90  Fed  636:  694,707. 
Bagg's  Appeal,  43  Pa.  St.  512:  19. 

1233. 
Bagley  v.  Emberson,  79  Mo.  139: 
1142. 
v.  State,  103  Ga.  388:  341. 
Bagwell  v.  Lawrenceville,  94  Ga 

854,  449,  1031. 
Baier    v.   Hosmer,    107    Wis,   380: 

1146. 
Bailey,  Ex  parte,  39  Fla.  734:  964, 

965. 
Bailey  v.  Bailey,  L,  R  13  Q.  B.  Div. 
859: 
v.  Bailey,  21  Gratt.  43:  1226. 
v.  Bryan.  3  Jones  (N.  C),  357: 
472,  638,  362,917,  1049,  1050. 
v.  Commonwealth,     11     Bush, 

J:  664,  710.  750,  927. 
v.  Drane,  96  Tenn.  10:  542. 
v.  Harris.  12  Q.  B.  905:  939. 
v.  Gardner,  31  W.  Va.  94:  802, 

1000. 
v.  Kalamazoo     Pub.     Co.,    40 
Mich.  251:  877. 


Bailey  v.  Kinoaid,57Hun,  516:  1222. 
v.  Magwire,  22  Wall.  226:  1004. 
v.  Mason,  4  Minn.  540:  545,  540. 
v.  McDowell,  2  Harr.  34:  6ia 
v.  People,  190  111.  28:  427. 
v.  Railroad   Co.,   4   Harr.  389: 

1225. 
v.  Rolfe,  16  N.  H.  247:  888,  893, 
895. 
Bailie's  Case,  1  Leach's  Cas.  396: 

649. 
Baines  v.  Janesville,  100  Wis.  369: 
445,  529. 
v.  Williams,    3    Ired.   L.    481: 
1015. 
Baird  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  11 
S.  &  R,  418:  1037. 
v.  Hutchinson.  179  111.  435:  860. 
v.  Todd,  27  Neb.  782:  436. 
Baker,  In  re,  2  H.  &  N.  219:  483. 
Baker  v.  Baker,  13  Cal.  87:  634,  864. 
v.  Compton,  52  Tex.   252:  308. 
v.  Cook  Co.  Com'rs,  9  Wyo.  51: 

815. 
v.  Jacobs,  64  Vt.  197:  719,  722. 
v.  Kaiser,    126    Fed.   317:    112, 

225. 
v.  Lorillard,  4  N.  Y.  261:  900. 
v.  Payne,  22  Ore,  335:  689,  749, 

880. 
v.  Smith,  91  Ga  142:  1226. 
v.  State,  80  Wis,  416:  579. 
v.  Taylor,  2  Blatch.  82:  1142. 
v.  Terrell,  8  Minn.   195:    1060. 
v.  Warren  Co.,  11  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

170:  303. 
v.  Wright,  1  Bush,  500:  38. 
Baker  Wire  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  Ry. 

Co.,  106  Iowa,  239:  988. 
Balch  v.  Detroit,  109  Mich.  253:  553. 
v.    Johnson,    106    Tenn.    249: 
783. 
Baldinger  v.  Rockford  Ins.  Co.,  80 
Minn.  147:  475. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


XXXI 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Baldro  v.  Tolmie,  1  Ore.  176:  1282. 

Baldwin  v.  Boulware,  82  Mo.  App. 

321:  1305,  1306. 

v.  Franks.  120  U.  S.  678:  590. 

v.  Newark,  38  N.  J.  L.  158:  642. 

Balfour  v.  Malcolm,  8  CI.  &  Fin.  500: 

1052. 
Balkcom  v.  Empire  Lumber  Co.,  91 

Ga.  651:  815. 
Ball  v.  Bullard,  52  Barb.  141:  505. 
v.  Kirk,  37  S.  C.  395:  466. 
v.  Lastinger,  71  Ga.  678:  1049, 

1261. 
v.  Mapp,  114  Ga.  349:  441,  801. 
Ballard  v.  Miss.  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  81 

Miss.  507:  370,  417,  588. 
Ballentine  v.  Willey,  3  Idaho,  496: 

577,  580,  602. 
Ballentyne  v.  Wickersham,  75  Ala. 

539:  185,  250. 
Ballin  v.  Ferst,  55  Ga.  546:  558. 
Ballou  v.  Black,  17  Neb.  389:  100, 
Ballston  Spa  Bank  v.  Marine  Bank. 

16  Wis.  120:  471. 
Baltimore  v.  Keeley  Inst.,  81  Md. 
106:  211,  249. 
v.  State,  15  Md.  376:  895. 
Baltimore,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 109  111.  App.  25:  1310. 
v.  Glenn,  28  Md.  287:  618,  620, 

622. 
v.   Grant,    98  U.   S.  398:  553, 

1169. 
v.  Hauer,  60    Md.    449:   1292, 

1293. 
v.  Keck,  185  111.  400:  644. 
v.  Kelley,  24  Md.  271:  1292. 
v.  Pumphrey,  74    Md.  86:  308. 
v.  Trainor,  33  Md.  542:  1292. 
v.  Union  R  R.  Co.,  35  Md.  224: 

1044. 
v.  Wilson,  2  W.  Va.  528:  944. 
Bammel   v.  Kirby,  19  Tex.  Crim. 
App.  198:  772,  1293. 


Bancroft  v.  Dumas,  21  Vt.  456:  938. 
Bandfield   v.  Bandfield,  117  Mich. 

80:  1295. 
Bane  v.  Wick,  6  Ohio  St  13:  900, 

908. 
Bangs  v.  Snow,  1  Mass.  181:  1033. 
Banholzer  v.  N.  Y.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  178 

U.  S.  402:  23,  624. 
Bank  v.  Dalton,  9  How.  522:  1282. 
v.  Divine  Grocery  Co.,  97  Tenn. 

603:  306. 
v.  Guthrey,  127  Mo.  189:  1260. 
v.  Hodgin,  129  N.  C.  247:  1159. 
v  Ibbotson,  5  Hill,  461:  645. 
v.  State,  18  Wash.  73:  1076. 
Bank  for  Savings  v.  Collector,  3 

Wall.  495:  544,  545,  671,  673. 
Bank  of  Alexandria  v.  Dyer,  14  Pet. 

141:  1279. 
Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet. 

519:  23,  27,  1037. 
Bank  of  Bramwell  v.  Mercer  Co.,  36 

W.  Va.  341:  731. 
Bank  of  British  North  America  v. 
Cahn,  79  Cal.  463:  491,  523. 
v.  Madison,  99  Cal.   125:  1122. 
Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Fitzhugh,  1  H. 
&  G.  989:  868. 
v.   Portland,  41  Ore.  1:    1059, 
1060. 
Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Fuqua,  11 

Mont.  285:  22,  618. 
Bank  of  Commonwealth  v.  Spil- 

man,  3  Dana,  150:  625. 
Bank  of  England  v.  Anderson,  3 
Bing.  N.  C.  666:  887. 
v.  Vagliano  Bros.  (1891),  A.  C. 
107:  855. 
Bank  of  Gallipolis  v.  Domigan,  12 

Ohio,  220:  1056. 
Bank  of  Hamilton  v.  Dudley,  2  Pet. 

492:  553,  576. 
Bank  of  Indiana  v.  New  Albany,  11 
Ind.  139:  255. 


XXX11 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


The  references  ;m>  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  !■  603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  C05-1315. 


Bank  of  Ireland   v.  Evans*  Char- 
ities, ■">  II   l.  Caa  405:  S88. 
Hank  of  Louisiana  V.  Williams.  46 

Miss.  618:  102L 
Hank  of  Metropolis  v.  Faber,  150  N. 

V.  800:  448. 
Bank  of  Mobile  v.  Meagher,  33  Ala. 

682:  930. 
Hank    of    Monroe    v.    "Widner,    11 

Paige,  589:  1050. 
Bank  of  Montreal  v.  Potts  Salt  & 

L.  Co..  98  Mich.  854:  1861. 
Hank  of  Natchez  v.  State,   6  Sm. 

&  M.  599:  1193. 
Bank  of  Newberry  v.  Railroad  Co., 

9  Rich.  495:  635. 
Bank  of  Pa  v.  Commonwealth,  19 

Pa.  St.  144:  881. 
Bank   of  Rome  v.  Rome,  18  N.  Y. 

170. 
Hank  of  St.  Marys  v.  State,  12  Ga. 

475:  546,  554. 
Bank  of  the  Dominion  v.  McVeigh, 

20Gratt  457:   1193. 
Bank  of  the  State  v.  Bank  of  Cape 

Fear,  13  Ired.  75:  1193. 
Bank  of  Toledo  v.  Bond,  1  Ohio  St, 

64a 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Dand- 
ridge.  12  Wheat  68:  1035. 

v.  Halstead,  10  Wheat.  51:  140. 

v.  Lee,  13  Pet.  107:  1245. 

v.  McKenzie,  2  Brock.  393:  666, 
672. 

v.  Merchants"  Bank,  7  Gill.  415: 

Bank  of  Utica  v.  Smedes,  3  Cow. 

625. 
Banks.  Ex  parte,  28  Ala  28:   929, 

1149. 
Banks  v.  Cage,  1  How.  (Miss.)  293: 
1049. 
v.  Darden,18Ga.818:  645,1049, 
105i  A 


Banks  v.  Yolo  Co.,  104  Cal.  258:  465, 

518,  527. 
Bannon  v.  State,  49  Ark.  167:  412. 
Baptiste  v.  De  Volunbran,  5  H.  & 

J.  86:  866. 
Barber  v.  Dummerston,  72  Vt.  330: 
1160.  1167. 
v.  Gamson,  4  B.  &   Aid.   281: 

1149. 
v.  Waite,  1  Ad.  &  E.  514:  711. 
Barber  Co.    Comr's   v.    Smith,    48 
Kan.  331 :  300. 
v.  Society  for  Savings,  101  Fed. 
767:  532. 
Barber's  Contested  Election,  86  Pa. 

St.  392:  637. 
Barclay  v.  Leas,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  314: 

52  1. 

Bard  v.  Yohn,  26  Pa.  St,  482:  1272. 

Banlen  v.  Crocker,  10  Pick.  383:  636. 

v.  Wells,  14  Mont,  462:  492,523. 

Barker  v.  Bell,  46  Ala.  216:  462. 

v.  Esty,  19  Yt.  131:  695,  722,  756. 

v.  Floyd.  61  App.  Div.  92:  533. 

v.  Hebbard,  81  Mich.  267:  703, 

744. 
v.  Jackson,  1  Paine,  559:  616. 
v.  Jerico  Springs,  39  Mo.  App. 

288;  1170. 
v.  Millard,  16  Wend.  572:  1282. 
v.  Palmer,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  D.  9: 
1138. 
Barkley  v.  State,  28  Tex.  Ct.  App. 

99:  741,  965,  973. 
Barkman  v.  Hopkins,  6  Eng.  (Ark.) 

157:  621. 
Barks  v.  Woodruff,  12  111.  App.  96: 

1265. 
Bar  more  v.  State  Board,   21    Ore. 

301:  784. 
Barnaby  v.  Bradley  &  Currier  Co., 

60  N.  J.  L.  158:  557. 
Barnard  v.  Gall,  43  La.  Ann.  959: 
100,  517,  519,  606,  880. 


TABLE    OF   OASES    CITED. 


XXX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L.  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Barnard  v.  McLeod,  114  Mich.  73: 
301. 
v.  Viele,  21  Wend.  89:  1137. 
Barnawell  v.  Threadgill,  5  Ired.  Eq. 

86:  1052. 
Barnes  v.  Doe,  4  Ind.  132:  1000. 
v.  Lynch,  9  Okl.  156:  784. 
v.  Mayor,  19  Ala.  707:  1158. 
v.  Supervisors,  51  Miss.   307: 

171. 
v.    Thompson,   2  Swan,    317: 

1150. 
v.   Williams,  3  Ired.   L.  481: 
1282. 
Barnet  v.  Barnet,  15  S.  &  R.  72: 1229. 
Barnett,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  351: 

932. 
Barnett  v.  Denison,  145  U.  S.  135: 
1194. 
v.  Maloney,  97  Tenn.  697:  528, 
537.  1028. 
Barnhill  v.  Teague,  96  Ala,  207:  190, 

199,  231. 
Barnitz  v.  Beverley,  163  U.  S.  118 

1190,  1210. 
Barnwall  v.  Murrell,  108  Ala.  366 

781. 
Barret  v.  Chitwood,  2  Bibb,  431 

1249. 
Barrett  v.  Barrett,  120  N.  C.  127 
1169,  1231. 
v.  Dolan,  130  Mass.  366:  1271, 

1291. 
v.  Stutsman  Co.  4  N.   D.   175: 
889,  934 
Barrett's  Appeal,  73  Conn.  288:  781. 
Barrett's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  486: 

433. 
Barre  Water  Co.  In  re,  62  Vt.  27: 

815,  828. 
Barringer  v.  Florence,  41  S.  C.  501: 
458,  593. 
v.  Ryder,  119  Iowa,  121 :  22,  611. 
Barrows  v.  Downs,  9  R.  I.  447:  619. 


Barrows  v.  People's  Gas  Light  & 

Coke  Co.,  75  Fed.  794:  444,  783. 
Barr's  Estate,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  222: 

654 
Barry  v.  Lancy,  179  Mass.  112:  1311. 
v.  Merchants'  Exch.  Co.,  1  Sand. 

Ch.  289:  1037. 
v.  Randolph,  3  Binn.  277:  946. 
v.  Viall,  12  R.  I.  1 :  120. 
Bartch  v.  Meloy,  8  Utah,  424:  518. 
Bartels  v.  Kmnenger,  144  Mo.  370: 

1260. 
Bartemeyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  129: 

1019. 
Bartlet  v.  King,  12  Mass.  545:  515. 

v.  Viner,  Skin.  322:  938. 
Bartlett  v.  Board,  59  111.  364:  1134. 
v.  Morris,  9  Port.  266:  634,  649, 

703,  704. 
v.   O'Donoghue,    72    Mo.    563: 

1142. 
v.  Roberts,   66  Mo.   App.  125: 
1294. 
Barto  v.  Himrod,  8  N.  Y.  483:  145, 

161,  600. 
Barton  v.  Gadsden,  79  Ala..  495:  558. 
v.  Hannant,  3  B.  &  S.  16:  654. 
v.  McWhinney,    85    Ind.    481 : 

118. 
v.  Morris,  15  Ohio,  408:  643. 
v.  Port  J.  etc.  P.  R.  Co.,  17  Barb. 
397:  938. 
Barton  Nat.  Bank  v.  Atkins,  72  Vt. 

33:  1161. 
Bartruff  v.  Remey,  15  Iowa,  257: 

558,  641. 
Bashaw  v.  State,  1  Yerg.  177:  639. 
Basnett  v.  Jacksonville,  19  Fla.  664: 

435,  442. 
Bass  v.  Mayor,  30  Ga.  845:  1230. 
Basset  v.  Railroad   Co.,  145  Mass. 

129:  1020. 
Bassett  v.  United  States,  2  Ct.  of 
CI.  448:  308,  635. 


XX  XI V 


TA1U.1     OF    C  L8)  s  ci  1  in. 


Hie  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  it,  pp.  I 


'  elder  v.  Bhapleigb,   10    Me. 

L09ft 
man  v.  Colgan,  ill  Cal.  580: 

Bate    Refrigerating   Co.  v.    Sulz- 
■  .  s.  l :  855. 
-  v.  Bratton,  96  Tex  279:  130, 

11  GO. 
v.  Clark,  95  U.  S.  204:  545. 
v.  Cullum,  177  Pa.  St.  633:  1228. 
v.  Davis,  76  111.  222:  1265. 
v.  Gregory,  89  Cal.  387:  1206. 
v.  Kimball,  2  D.  Chip.  77:  19. 
v.  Nelson,  49  Mich.  459:  201. 
v.  Relyea,  23  Wend.  340:  898. 
v.  State.  118  Ala.  102:  432, 
v.  Stearns,  23  Wend.  482:  1227. 
Batman  v.  Megowan,  1  Met.  (Ky.) 

Batterman  v.  New  York,  65  App. 

Div.  576:  1003,  1004. 
Battle  v.  Shivers,  39  Ga.  405:  651. 
Bauen  Co.  Ct.  v.  Knislow,  9  Ky.  L. 

R,  10S:  573. 
Bauer  Grocer  Co.  v.  Zelle,  172  111. 

407:   1158,  1191,  1203. 
Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  299:  1198, 

1217,  1218,  1233. 
Baum  v.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  577:  1059. 
v.  Sweeny,  5  Wash.  712:  439. 
v.  Thorns,   150   Ind.   378:    562, 
57ft 
Baumgartner  v.   Hasty,   100    Ind. 

189. 
B  ly  v.  Gage,  36  Barb.  447:  443,  642, 

id  v.  Smith,  17  Wend.  88:  646, 

City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Austin, 

21   Mich.   890:  546,  554,  550.  646, 

987. 

Co.    v.   Brock,   44    Mich.    45: 

1184 

Bayley  v.  Hazard,  3  Yerg.  487:  1136. 


Bayly  v.  Chubb,  1G  Gratt.  284:  606, 

865. 
Bay  Shell  Road  Co.   v.  O'Donnell, 

87  Ala.  376:  455. 
Baxter   v.   Coughlin,  70  Minn.  1: 
1311. 
v.  Tripp,  12  R.  L  310:  909, 1071, 

1072. 
v.  Wade,  39  W.  Va.  281:  731, 
745. 
Beach  v.  Botsford,  1  Doug.  (Mich.) 

199:  922,  1048. 
Beach  v.  Reynolds,  64  Barb.  506: 
1149. 
v.  Van   Detton,   139  Cal.    463: 

134,  191,  231. 
v.  Tiles,  2  Pet,  675:  615. 
Beall  v.  Beall.  8  Ga.  210:  1060, 1243. 
v.  Harwood,  2  Har.  &  J.  167: 
695. 
Deals  v.  Hale,  4  How.  37:  463,  513. 
Beams,  Matter  of,  17  How.  Pr.  459: 

1226. 
Bean  v.  Briggs.  4  Iowa,  464:  611,  612. 
Bear  Brothers  v.  Marx,  63  Tex.  298: 

801 
Bearcamp  Riv.  Co.  v.  Woodman,  2 

Green  If.  404:  636. 
Beard  v.  Basye,  7  B.  Mon.  144:  25, 
27,  617. 
v.  Rowan,  9  Pet.  301:  654. 
v.  State.  74  Md.   130:  572,  573, 
1174. 
Bear  Lake,  etc.  Co.  v.  Garland,  164 

U.  S.  1:  524,  1258. 
Bear  Park  v.  Hutchinson,  7  Bing. 

186:  1239. 
Beasley  v.  Ridout,  94  Md.  641 :  6. 
Beatrice  v.  Edmunson,  117  Fed.  427: 
613. 
v.  Masslich,  108  Fed.  743:  239, 
433,  430,  440. 
Beatrice  Paper  Co.  v.  Beloit  Iron 
Works,  46  Neb.  900:  409. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


XXXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  U,  pp.  605-1315. 


Beatty  v.  Burnes,  8  Cranch,  98: 
1282. 
v.  Commonwealth,  91  Ky.  313: 

532,  846. 
v.  Parker,  141  Mass.  523:  1256. 
v.  People,  6  Colo.  538:  559,  678, 

680. 
v.  Richardson,   56  S.   C.    173: 
741,  799. 
Beaty  v.  Knowler,  4  Pet.  152:  626, 

1009,  1041. 
Beaumont  v.  Irwin,  2  Sneed,  291: 

674. 
Beavan  v.  Went,  155  I1L  592:  573. 
Beaver  Co.  v.  Indexes,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

525:  369,  386. 
Beavers  v.  Myar,  68  Ark.  333:  547, 
1220. 
v.  State,  60  Ark.  124:  846. 
Beawfage's  Case,  10  Coke,  996:  723, 

1251. 
Bechtol  v.  Cobaugh,  10  S.  &  R  121: 

545. 
Beck  v.  St.  Paul,  87  Minn.  381:  466, 

503. 
Becke  v.  Smith,  2  M.  &  W.  191:  730, 

793,  794,  1094. 
Becker  v.  La  Crosse,  99  Wis.  414: 

21,  25,  1029. 
Beckett  v.  Uniontown  B.  Ass'n,  88 

Pa.  St.  211:  1140. 
Beck  ford   v.   Hood,  7    T.   R.   620: 

1058. 
Beckman  v.  Stanley,  8  Nev.  257: 

1142. 
Beck  with  v.  Racine,  7  Biss.   142: 

1194. 
Bedardv.  Hall,  44111.91:99. 
Bedell  v.  Janney,  9  111.  193:  1015. 
Bedford  v.  Shilling,  4  S.  &  R  401: 

21,  640,  1227. 
Bedier  v.  Fuller,  116  Mich.  126: 1228. 
Bedsworth  v.  Bowman,  104  Mo.  44: 
1297. 


Beebe  v.  Scheidt,  13  Ohio  St.  406: 

1051. 

v.  Tolerton,  117  Iowa,  593:  231. 

Beecher  v.  Baldy,  7  Mich.  483:  1054, 

Beecher's  Estate,  In  re,  113  Mich. 

667:  1217. 
Beekman  Street,  Matter  of,  20  John. 

269:  1048. 
Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S. 

25:  1195. 
Beers  v.  Haughton,  9  Pet.  359: 1210. 
v.  Phoenix  Glass  Co.,  14  Barb. 

358:  1037. 
v.  Walhizer,  43  Hun,  254:  1268. 
Beeson  v.  Green  Mt.  G.  M  Co.,  57 

Cal.  20:  1292. 
Belauger  v.  Hersey,90  111.  70:  1254. 
Belding  L.  &  L  Co.  v.  Belding,  128 

Mich.  79:  270,  542,  579,  582. 
Beley  v.  Naphtaly,  169  U.  S.  353: 

1076,  1240. 
Belfast  v.  Fogler,  71  Ma  403:  559, 

753. 
Belknapp  v.  Louisville,  93  Ky.  444: 

889,  896. 
Bell  v.  Allegheny  Co.,  149  Pa.  St. 
381:  528,  538. 
v.  Barnet,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.  516: 

879. 
v.   Holtby,   L.   R  15  Eq.    178: 

696. 
v.  Jones,  10  Md.  322:  911. 
v.  Maish,  137  Ind.  226:  231,  339. 
v.    Morrison,   1   Pet.  315:  615, 

1017. 
v.  New  York,   105  N.  Y.  139: 

729. 
v.  State,  115  Ala.  87:  268. 
v.  State,  91  Ga.  227:  585,  652. 
v.  Zelmer,  75  Mich.  66:  1268. 
Bellant  v.   Brown,  78  Mich.   294: 

860,  861,  1248. 
Belleville    S.   Bank    v.    Richardi, 
56  Mich.  453:619. 


XXXVI 


T.M-.I.i:    OK    i' ASKS    til  II'. 


Tiu>  references  are  I  Vol.  1.  pp.  i-608;  Vol.  n,  pp.  G05-1315. 


Bellmeyer    v,    [ndependent  Disk, 

eta,  H  l.'w.i.  564:  L085. 
Bellville   R.  EL  Co.  v.  Gregory,  15 
111.  80:  958,  859. 

hoover  v.  Gollings,  101  Pa.  St. 
L186. 

r     Borough    v.    Beltz- 
hoover'a   Beirs,   L73  Pa  St.  318: 

Belvidere   v.  Warren  R  R.  Co.,  34 
N.  J.  L.  193:  545,  546,  555. 
v.  Warren  R  R,  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L. 
584:  555. 
Bemis  v.  Becker,  1  Kan.  226:  939. 
v.MoKenzie,  18  Fla  553:  611. 
v.  Leonard,  118  Mass.  50-2:  327, 

Bender  v.  Crawford,  33  Tex.  745: 

v.  state  58  End.  254:  63. 
Benezet  Joint  Stock  Ass'n,  In  re, 

17  Phila.  215:  654,  655 
Benkert   v.  Benkert,  32  Cal.  467: 

Benner  v.  Porter,  9  How.  235:  43, 

40. 
Benners  v.  State,  124  Ala.  97:  294. 
Bennet  v.  Hargus,  1  Neb.  419:  545, 

Bennett  v.  Auditor,  2  W.  Va.  441: 
93L 
v.  Bennett,  Deady,  309:  41,613. 
v.  Birmingham,  31  Pa,  St.  15: 

1010. 
v.  Drain.  Com'r,  50   Mich.  034: 

1141. 
v.  Frary,  55  Tux.  145:  1100. 
v.  McWhorter,  2  W.  Va  441: 

v.  North    British    Ins.    Co.,    8 
Daly,  471: 

v.  Worthington,  21   Ark.   4^7: 


Penning    v.    Smith,   108  Ga.    259: 

341. 
Bensley  v.  Brignold,  5   B.  &  Aid. 
335:  93*. 
v.  Ellis,  39  Cal.  309:  017. 
v.  Mountain   Lake  W.  Co.   13 
Cal.  306:  1000,  1041. 
Benson  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  75 
Minn.  163:  694,  696,  811. 
v.  Christian,  129  Ind.  535:  191, 

278 
v.  St,    Paul,  etc.   Ry.   Co.,   62 
Minn.  19S:  772. 
Bentley  v.  Manchester,  etc.  Ry.  Ca 
(1891),  3  Ch.  222:  942. 
v.  Rotherham,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  D. 
588:  648,  654. 
Bently  v.  Adams,  92  Wis.  386:  525. 
Benton  v.  Wickwire,  54  N.  Y.  226: 

442,  443,  698. 
Benz  v.  St.  Paul,  77  Minn.  375:  302. 
Benzinger    v.  United  States,    192 

U.  S.  38:  995. 
Beresheim  v.  Arnd,  117  Iowa,  83: 

289,  290. 
Berg   v.    Baldwin,   31    Minn.    541: 
1097. 
v.  Berg,  105  Ky.  80:  1158,  1163L 
v.  San  Antonio  St.  Ry.  Co.,  17 
Tex.    Civ.   App.  291;  103a 
Berger  v.    Berger,   104  Wis.    282: 
572. 
v.  Duff,  4  John.  Ch.  368:  145. 
v.  Jacobs,   21  Mich.   215:  1295. 
Berkowitz   v.    Lester,    121    III  99: 

1052. 
Berkshire  v.  Miss.  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  28 

Mo.  App.  225:  515 
Berley  v.  Rampacher,  5  Duer,  183: 

643. 
Berliner  v.  Waterloo,  14  Wis.  378: 

;  i.  317,  866 
Berluchaux   v.   Berluchaux,  7  La. 
539:  ooo. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


XXXVll 


The  references  r.re  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Bernards  Tp.  v.  Allen,  61  N.  J.  L. 

228:  156. 
Berne  v.  Bank  of  England,  9  Ves. 

347:  869. 
Bernier  v.  Becker,  37  Ohio  St.  72: 
635. 
v.  Bernier,  147  U.  S.  242:  732. 
Berry  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
41  Md.  446:  72,  74,  78,  87, 
577,  605,  867. 
v.  Bellows,  30  Ark.  198:  37. 
v.  Clary,  77  Me.  482:  660,  710, 

1225. 
v.  Clements,  11  How.  398:  327. 
v.  Clements,  9  Humph.  312:  327. 
v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 

52  Kan.  759:  433. 

v.  Railroad  Co.,  41  Md.  464:  321. 

Bertholf  v.  0"Reilly,  8  Hun,  16:  1266. 

v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509:  1262, 

1266. 

Best  v.  Gholson,   89  111.  465:  645, 

1136,  1139. 
Bestor  v.  Powell,  7  111.  119:  748. 
Bethlehem  v.  Watertown,  51  Conn. 

490:  637. 
Betsinger  v.  Chapman,  88  N.  Y.  488: 

770. 
Bettis  v.  Taylor.  8  Port,  564:  959. 
Bettman  v.  Cowley,  19  Wash.  207: 

1213. 
Betz  v.  Philadelphia,  19  Phila.  452: 

391. 
Beumer  v.  Wall,  86  Minn.  294:  505, 

1133. 
Bevens  v.  Baxter,  23  Ark.  387:  625, 

633. 
Beverly   v.  Barnitz,  55  Kan.  466: 
1210. 
v.  Wain,  57  N.  J.  L.  143:  209. 
Biagi  v.  Howes,  66  Cal.  469:  1018. 
Bibb  v.  Hall,  101  Ala.  79:  547. 
Bibb  Co.  L.  Ass'n  v.  Richards,  21 
Ga.  592:  95. 


Bick  v.  Wilkerson,  62  Mo.  App.  31: 

1133. 
Bickerdike  v.  Chicago,  203  111.  636: 

1010. 
Biddis  v.  James,  6  Binn.  321:  619. 
Bidwell  v.  Whitaker,  1  Mich.  469: 

916. 
Bienville  Water  Supply  Co.  v.  Mo- 
bile, 175  U.  S.  109:  1023. 
v.  Mobile,  186  U.  S.  212:  1023. 
Bierer  v.  Blurok,  9  Wash.  63:  442, 
Biffin  v.  Yorke,  5  Man.  &  G.  437: 

705. 
Big  Block  Creek,  etc.  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 94  Pa.  St.  450:  711, 
729,  864,  8S4. 
Bigelow    v.   Bemis,   2  Allen,   496: 
1287. 
v.  Forrest,  9  Wall.  339:  893. 
v.  Gregory,  73  111.  197:  1140. 
v.  Wilson,  1  Pick.  485:  320,  328, 
332,  333. 
Biggs  v.  McBride,  17  Ore.  640:  314. 
Billerica  v.  Chelmsford,   10   Mass. 

394:  1014. 
Billinger  v.  Evans,  4  Wright,  327: 

1207. 
Billings  v.  Baker,  28  Barb.  343:  507, 

1062,  1243. 
Billingslea  v.  Baldwin,  23  Md.  85: 

855. 
Billingsley  v.   Dean,   11  Ind.  331: 

869. 

Biloxi  v.  Borries,  78  Miss.  657:  846. 

Bingham  v.  Birmingham,  103  Mo. 

345:  739,  798,  929. 

v.  Camden,  40  N.  J.  L.  156:  — . 

v.  Supervisors,  8  Minn.  441:  683. 

Binghamton   Bridge,   3  Wall.   51: 

1021. 
Binney  v.  Canal  Co.,  8  Pet.  201: 

729. 
Binz  v.  Weber,   81   111.    288:    215, 
258. 


WW  111 


TABLE    OF   0A8E8    GULP. 


i  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  i,  pp.  1-008;  Vol.  ii,  pp.  000-1815. 


Binsel  v.  Qrogan,  07  Wis.  147:  1098, 
195ft 

:r  l  v.  Booth,  l  Wia  67:  1181. 
Bird  v.  Commonwealth,  81  Gratt. 
618,  865. 
v.  Jones,  37  Ark.  195:  077. 
v.  Selley,  118  Ma  580:  1083. 
v.  Wasco  County,   3   Ore.    988: 
417.  4C3. 
Birdsall  v.  Carrick,  3  Nev.  154:  10G, 
107. 
v.  Wheeler,  58  Conn.  499:   549. 
Birmingham  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  May 

&  T.  II.  Co.,  99  Ala.  876:  491. 
Birmingham,   etc.   St.  Ry.   Co.   v. 
Birmingham  St.  Ry.  Co.,  79  Ala. 
165:  1023. 
Birmingham     Iron     Foundry     v. 
Glen  Cove  Starch  Co.,  78  N.  Y. 
30:  1856. 
Birmingham  Union  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ely- 
ton  Land  Co.,  114  Ala.  70:  455. 
Bishop  v.  Barton,  8  Hun,  436:  651, 
603,  708,  849. 
v.  Globe  Co.,  135  Masa  132:  28. 
v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  294:  880. 
v.  Middleton,  43  Neb.   10:  302, 
429. 
Bissell  v.  Bissell,  11  Barb.  96:  337. 
v.  Dickerson,  64  Conn.  61:  468. 
v.  Heath,  93  Mich.  472:  249. 
Bittenhaus   v.    Johnston,  92  Wis. 

588:  422,  579,  581, 1174. 
Bitters  v.  Board,  81  Ind.  125:  228. 
Bittle  v.  Stuart,  34  Ark.  224:  577, 

579,  592. 
Bixon  v.  Caledonian  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R. 
A  pp.  Cas.  827:  910. 
;k   v.  Cohen,  52  Ga,  626:   184, 

221. 
v.  Com'rs,   129  N.  C.    121:  171. 
v.  Johns  OS  Pa.  St.  8:J:  328. 
v.  Trir-ker,   59  Pa.  St.  13:  815. 
v.  Trower,  79  Va.  123:  502. 


Blackburn    v.  State,  50  Ohio  St. 

498:  1174,  1185. 
Black  Creek,  etc.  Co.,  v.  Common- 
wealth, 94  Pa.  St.  450:  885. 
Blackfeather  v.  United  States,  190 

U.S.  368:  1053. 
Blackford  v.  Hurst,  26  Gratt.  206: 

521,  543. 

Blackman  v.  Dixon,  12  Mo.  479: 333. 

v.  Gordon,  2  Rich.  Eq.  43,  1220. 

v.  Henderson,    116   Iowa,  578: 

1234. 

Blackmare  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

102  Mo.  455:  1020. 
Black  River  Imp.   Co.  v.   Holway, 

87  Wis.  584:  177,  340,  429. 
Black's  Appeal,  83  Mich.  513,  1261. 
Blackwell  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  10 
N.  M.  555:  847. 
v.  State,  45  Ark.  90:  482,  496 
Blackwell's  Case,  (Vern.)  52:  1147 
Blackwood  v.  Queen,  L.  R.  8  A  pp. 
Cas.  96:  724. 
v.  Van    Vleet,   11    Mich.    252 

1210. 
v.  Van    Vleet,   30    Mich.    118 
909,  1072. 
Bladen  v.  Philadelphia,  60  Pa.  St. 

464:  471,  637,  1115,  1136,  1143. 
Blader  v.  Water  Comrs.  122  Mich. 

366:  214,  592. 
Blain  v.  Bailey,  25  Ind.  165:  532, 

636. 
Blair  v.  Cary,  9  Wis.  543:  612,  1226. 
v.  Ridgeley,  41  Mo.  03:  38. 
v.  State,  90  Ga,  326:  185,  L08, 
267. 
Blake  v.  Brackett,  47  Me.  28:  796. 
v.  Crowningshield,  9  N.  H.  304: 

327. 
v.  Hey  ward,    Bailey    Eq.   208: 

915. 
v.  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  10  L.  &  2q. 
437:  1291. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


XXXLX 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Blake  v.  National  Banks,  23  Wall. 
307:  881,  882. 
v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  11 
Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  151:  470. 
Blakemore  v.  Dolan,  50  Ind.  194: 

431,  432,  435. 
Blakeney  v.  Blakeney,  6  Port  109: 

1075, 1086. 
Blaker  v.  Hood,  53  Kan.  499:  191, 

301. 
Blanchard  v.  Russell,  13  Mass.  1: 
620. 
v.  Sprague,  2  Story,  164:  1033. 
v.  Sprague,  3  Sumner,  279:  663, 

799,  1160. 
v.  Sprague,    3    Sumner,     539: 
1243. 
Blanding  v.  Burr,  13  CaL  357:  161, 

170. 
Blanfield  v.  State,  103  Tenn.  593: 

504. 
Blankard  v.  Galdy,  2  Salk.  411:  28, 

34,  609. 
Blankenburg  v.  Block,  200  Pa.  St. 

629:  401,  429. 
Blasdell  v.  State,  5  Tex.  App.  263: 

671. 
Blatz  v.  Rohrback,  42  Hun,  402: 

1270. 
Blaylock    v.    Muskogee,   117    Fed. 

125:  785,  786. 
Blemer  v.  People,  76  111.  265:  757, 

797. 
Blessing  v.  Galveston,  42  Tex.  641: 

67,  85. 
Block  v.  State.  66  Ala.  493:  198. 
Blodgett,  In  re,  27  Hun,  12:  217. 
Blodgett,  Matter  of,  89  N.  Y.  392: 

201. 
Blood  v.  Fairbanks,  50Cal.  420:  674. 
v.   Humphrey,    17    Barb.    660: 
940. 
Bloodgood  v.  Grasey,  31  Ala.  575: 
620,  908,  929. 


Bloom  v.  Burdick,  1  Hill.  130:  1049, 
1137. 
v.    Richards,   2  Ohio  St.   387: 
938. 
Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean,  158: 

456. 
Bloomington  Cem.  Ass'n  v.  People, 

170  111.  377:  1C03. 
Bloss  v.  Lewis,  109  Cal.  493:  409. 
Bloxham  v.  Consumers'  Electric  L. 
&  R.  Co.,  36  Fla.  519:  781, 
889. 
v  Florida,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  35  Fla. 
625:  413. 
Blue  v.  Beach,  155  Ind.  121:  150. 
v.  McDuffie,  Busbee  L.  (N.  C.) 
131:  654. 
Blue  Jacket  C.  C.  Co.  v.  Scherr,  50 

W.  Va.  553:  430. 
Bly  v.  National  Bank,  79  Pa.  St. 
453:  939. 
v.  White  Deer  Mt.  W.  Co.,  197 
Pa.  St.  80:  1041. 
Blythe  v.  Hinckley,  127  Cal.  431: 

39. 
Boales  v.  Ferguson,  55  Neb.  565: 

178. 
Board  of  Assessors  v.  Central  R.  R. 

Co.,  48  N.  J.  146:  367. 
Board  of  Com'rs  v.  Bailey,  122  Ind. 
46:  757. 
v.  Baker,  80  Ind.  374:  201,  253. 
v.  Board  of  Com'rs,   128  Ind. 

295:  693,  696,  706,  885. 
v.  Brown,  147  Ind.  476:  8,  339. 
v.  Chew,  44  Kan.  162:  316. 
v.  Conner,  155  Ind.  484:  781. 
v.  Davis,  136  Ind.  78:  1153. 
v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  6  Colo.  App. 

423:  493. 
v.  Hall.  9  Colo.  App.  538:  693, 

717.  722,  723. 
v.  Mineral  Co.,  9  Colo.  App.  368: 
70G. 


xl 


TABLE    OF    OA8ES    i'l  l'l  D. 


The  reference!  ere  to  the  pages:  Voh  I,  pp.  1  i',<>:!;  vol.  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


B  a:  »ra  v.  Potts,  10  Ind 

886:   Is:,  516. 
v.  Pueblo,  etc.  R,  R.  Co.,  3  Colo. 

App  398:  1009. 
v.  Silvers,  32  End  191:  583. 
aith,    23    Colo.    534:    157, 
1154 
v.  Spitler,  13  Ind.  235:  872. 

ite,  9  Gill,  379:  638. 
r  1  of  Councilman  v.  Browner, 
Ky.  166:  9 
Board  of  Education  v.  Barlow.  19 
Ga,  241:  184 
v.  Blodgett,  155  111.  441:  1218, 

v.  Board   of  Trustees,  96  Cal. 

12:   1156. 
v.  Cliffside  Park,  63  N.   J.  L. 

371:  302. 
v.  Harolson,  2  Old.  170:  464. 
v.  Moses,  51  Neb.  288:  451,  577. 
v.  Stollan,95  111.  App.  250:  834. 
v.  Tafoya,  6  X.  M.  292:  542. 
Board  of  Election  Com'rs  v.  State, 

14S  Ind.  675:  703,  745. 
Boarl  of   Bealth  v.  Hill,  13  C.  B. 

N.  S.)  183:  874 
Board  of  Liquidation  v.  McComb, 

92  U.  S.  531:  1199. 
Board  of  Pub.  Lands  &  Buildings, 

In  re,  37  Neb.  425:  469. 
Board  of  School  Directors  v.  Board 
of  School  Directors,  81  Wis.  428: 

:  1  of  State  Tax  Com'rs  v.  Board 
of  Assessors,  121   Mich.  491:  301. 
Board   of   Supervisors   v.  Auditor- 
General,  <;.-,  Mich.  408:  298. 
v.  Heenan,  2  Minn.  330:  72,  7s. 

v.  People,  25  111.  181:  258. 

v.  People,  1'.'  Hi.  App  300:  846, 

v.  Todd,  '.<:  m  i.  ■-';:•.  9. 


Board   of  Trustees  v.  Board  of  Su- 
pervisors, 99  Cal.  571:  172. 
v.  Cuppctt.  52  Ohio  St,  567:  39, 

616. 
v.  Louisville,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  17 

K.  L.  R.  160:  527. 
v.  Maysville,  97    Ky.   145:  266, 
1154. 
Board  of  Water  Com'rs  v.  People, 

137  III.  660:  452. 
Boas  v.  Nagle,  3  S.  &  R.  253:  946. 
Boatwright    v.   Faust,   4  McCord. 

439:   1217.  1220. 
Bobel  v.   People,  173  111.  19:    191, 

294. 
Bock   v.  Lauman,  24  Pa.  St.  435: 
611,  6 is',  621. 
v.  New  York,  31  Misc.  54:  443. 
Bode  v.  State,  7  Gill,  328:  723. 
Bodge  v.    Hughes,   53  N.    H.  614: 

1262. 
Boechat  v.  Brown,  9  App,  Div.  369: 

528. 
Boehm  v.  Engle,  1  Dall.  15:  28,610. 

v.  Hertz,  182  111.  154:  300. 
Bogardus    v.     Trinity    Church,    4 

Paige,  198:  28. 
Boggs  v.  Reed,  5  Mart.  673:  869. 
Bogue  v.  Seattle,  19  Wash.  396:  283. 
Bohmerv.  Haffen,  161  N.  Y.  390: 

135.  232,  256,  579. 

Boice  v.  Boice,  27  Minn.  371:  1210. 

Boise   City  Artesian   Hot  &  Cold 

Water  Co.  v.  Boise  City,  123  Fed. 

232:  785. 

Boismare  v.   His  Creditors,  8   La. 

315:  573. 
Bolles  v.  Outing  Co.,  175  U.  S.  202: 

646,  967,,  985. 
Bollin  v.  Shiner.  12  Pa.  St.  205:  757. 
Boiling  v.  Le  Grand,  87  Ala.  482: 

1 35. 
Bolton  v.  King,  105  Pa.  St.  78:  644, 
1248. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


;li 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:    Vcl.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Bolton  School,  Ex;parte,  2  Bro.  C.  C. 

662:  627. 
Bond  v.  Hopkins,  1  Sch.  &  Lef.  433: 
1101. 
v.  Munro,  28  Ga.  597:  641, 1158, 

1224. 
v.  Rosling,  1  B.  &  S.  371:  777. 
v.  Slate,  78  Md.  523:  301. 
v.  Turner,  33  Ore.  551:  1260. 
Bond  Debt  Cases,  12  S.  C.  200:  68, 

92. 
Bonds  v.  Greer,  56  Miss.  710:  698. 
Bone  Handler,  Ex  parte,  176  Mo. 

383:  171. 
Bones  v.  Booth,  2  W.  Black.  1226: 

958. 
Bon  ham  v.  Board  of  Epucation,  4 

Dill.  156:  639. 
Bon  Homme  Co.  v.  Berndt,  13  S.  D. 
309:  430. 
v.  Berndt,  15  S.  D.  494:  430. 
Booker  v.  McRoberts,  1  Call,  243: 

636,  1057. 
Bookwalter  v.  Conrad,  15  Mont.  464: 

557. 
Boon  v.  Bowers,  30  Miss.  246:  627, 
900,  901. 
v.  Juliet,  2  111.  258:  671. 
Boone  v.  State,  12  Tex.  App.  184: 

171. 
Boone  Co.  Home  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Anthony,  68  Mo.  App.  424: 
469. 
v.  Keck,  31  Ark.  387:  1102. 
Boorman  v.  Juneau  Co.,  76  Wis.  550: 

547. 
Booth  v.  Ibbotson,  1  Y.  &  J.  360: 
887. 
v.  Kitchen,  7  Hun,  260:  932, 939. 
v.  State,  4  Conn.  65:  1014. 
v.  Williams,  2  Ga.  252:  1077. 
Boothroyd,  In  re,  15  M.  &  W.  1 :  650. 
Booth's  Will,  40  Ore.  154:  507,  512. 
Borden  v.  State,  11  Ark.  519:  899. 


Boring  v.  State,  141  Ind.  640:  241, 

435. 
Borrowdale,  39  Fed.  376:  442. 
Borst  v.  Griffin,  5  Wend.  84:  336. 
Bosang  v.  Iron  Belt  B.  &  L.  Ass'n, 

96  Va.  119:  290,  1197. 
Bosanquet  v.  Woodford,  5  Q.  B.  310: 

1117. 
Bosley  v.  Davis,  1  Q.  B.  D.  84:  778. 
v.  Mathingly,  14  B.  Mon,  89: 703, 
705,  1071. 
Boston  v.  Cummins,  16  Ga.  102:  311, 

312. 
Boston,  etc.  Co.  v.  Gardner,  2  Pick. 

33:  1241. 
Boston,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  53 

N.  Y.  574:  1044. 
Boston,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Cilley,  44 
N.  H.  578:  641. 
v.  Trafton,  151  Mass.  229:  21. 
Boston  Min.  Co.,  In  re,  51  Cal.  624: 

650,  651. 
Boston  Nat.  Bank  v.  Atkins,  72  Vt. 

33:  518. 
Boston  Water  P.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc. 

R.  R.  Co.,  23  Pick.  360:  1043. 
Botanico-Med.  College  v.  Atchison, 

41  Miss.  1S8:  620,  784. 
Bouknight  v.  Epting,  11  S.  C.  71: 

1220. 
Bouldin  v.  Lockhart,  1  Lea,  195:  92. 
v.  Phelps,  30  Fed.  Rep.  547:  868. 
Boulter,  In   re,  5  Wyo.   329:   229, 

447. 
Boulton  v.  Bull,  2  H.  Bl.  499:  628. 
Bound  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  45  Wis.  543:  71, 

84,  87. 
Bounhorst  v.   Allegheny  Co.,   163 

Pa.  St.  588:  539. 
Bourgignon,  etc.  Ass'n  v.  Common- 
wealth, 98  Pa.  St.  54:  457,  809. 
Bourn  v.  Hart,  93  Cal.  321:  130. 
Bouton  v.  Royce,  10  Phila.  559:  564. 
Bout  well  v.  Foster,  24  Vt.  485:  938. 


xlii 


i  Ai:i  i:    OF    CASKS   el  rED. 


The  referaaoea  an  to  the  pages;  Vol.  l,  pp.  I  80 1;  V4L  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


Bovard  v.  Kansas  City,  eta  Ry.  Co., 
Mo.  app  198:  I  - 
v.  Kettering,  101  Pa  St.  181: 

len  v.  Philadelphia  eta  R.  R 
Pa  st.  563:  329. 
Bowe  v.  st.  Paul, 70  Minn.  841:  39a 
Bowen  v.  Clifton,  105  Ga.459:  10. 
v.  Lease,  5  Bill,  221:  459,403. 

486,  469,  174,512. 
v.  Minneapolis,  47   Minn.   115: 

1149,  1151. 
v.  Mo  Pao,  Ry.  Co.,  118  Mo.  541; 

005.  009. 
v.  N,w  York,  eta  R  R.  Co.,  59 

Conn.  364:  1158,  1288. 
v.  Smith,  111  Mo.  45:  785,  909, 

Bowen's  Will,  Matter  of,  34  Cal. 

1052. 
Bower  v.  Hope  Life  Ins.  Co.,  11  H. 

L.  Cas.  889:  1149. 
Bowers  v.  Braddock,  172  Pa.  St.  590: 
503. 

v.  Green,  1  Scam.  42: . 

Bowker  v.  Bradford,  140  Mass.  521: 

1296. 

Bowles  v.  Cochran,  93  N.  C.  393:  845. 

v.  Keator,  47  111.  App.  98:  885. 

Bowman  v.  Blyth,  7  El.  &  Bl.  47: 

471.  970. 

v.  Cockrill,  GKan.  311:  194,  221, 

287. 
r.  State,  38  Tex.  Crim.  Rep.  14: 

880. 
v.  Wood,  41  Ilk   203:  328,  331, 
334. 
Bows  v.  Fenwick,  LR.9GP.  339: 

yer  v.  Camden,  50  N.  J.  L.  87: 

•e,  In  re,  25  Wash.  612:  543. 
"  v.  Holmes,  2  Ala.  54:  640. 
v.  Tabb,  18  Wall.  540:  1106 


Boyce  v.  Wabash  Ry.  Co.,  03  1 

70:  28. 
Boyd   v.   Alabama,   94  U.   S.   645: 
905. 
v.  Brazil  Block  Coal  Co.,  25  Ind. 

App.  157:  955. 
v.  Bryant,  35  Ark.  69:  172,  174. 
v.  Hood,  57  Pa.  St.  98:  1000. 
v.  Lowry,  53  Miss.  352:  1049. 
v.  Milwaukee,  92  Wis.,  450:  380. 
v.  Randolph,  91  Ky.  472:   530, 

538. 
v.   Redd,   120  N.  C.  335:  1013, 

1053,  1060. 
v.  Watt,  27  Ohio  St.  259:  1272. 
Boyd  Paving  &  C.  Co.  v.  Ward,  85 

Fed.  27,  300. 
Boy  en  v.  Crane,  1  W.  Va.  176:  120. 
Boyer  v.  Grand  Rapids  Fire  Ins. 
Co.,  124  Mich.  455:  212. 
v.  Onion,  108  111.  App.  012:  1155. 
Boy  kin  v.  State,  50  Miss.  375:  Ilia 
Boyle,  In  re,  9  Wis.  204:  317,  345, 

Boyle  v.  Vanderhoof,  45  Minn.  31 : 

191,  1201. 
Bozarth  v.  Largent,  128111.95:  572, 

1002,  1294. 
Brace  v.  Solner,  1  Alaska,  361:  674, 

731. 
Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People,  147 

111.  60:  417. 
Bracken  v.  Smith,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  169: 

510,  521. 
Bracket  v.  Ohio,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  14 

Pa.  St.  241 :  923. 
Brackett  v.  Brackett,  61  Mo.  223: 
327. 
v.  Norton,  4  Conn.   517:    617, 
018. 
Bradburn  v.  Great  W.  Ry.  Co.,  L. 

R.  10,  Ex.  1:  1292. 
Bradbury  v.  Wagenhorst,  54  Pa.  St. 
701,  704,  796,  928. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


xliii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Bradford  v.  Barclay,  42  Ala.  375: 
642,  1228. 
v.  Floyd,  80  Mo.  207:  880. 
v.  Jones,  1  Md.  351:  648,  651. 
Bradford  v.  Treasurer,  Peck.  (Tenn.) 

425:  630,  699. 
Bradley  v.  Baxter,   15  Barb.   122: 
145. 
v.  Clark,  5  T.  R.  201:  630. 
v.  Corn'rs,  2  Humph.  428:  608. 
v.  Ins.  Co.,  3  Lans.  341:  611. 
v.  Jamison,  46  Iowa,  68:  1050. 
v.  Lightcap,  201  111.  511:  1215. 
v.  Loring,  54  N.  J.  L.  227:  451. 
v.  McAtee,  7  Bush,  667:  1194. 
v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  21 

Conn.  305:  1044. 
v.  Norris,  63  Minn.  156:  1283. 
v.  Pitt-burgh,  130  Pa.  St.  475: 

303. 
v.  Richmond,  6  Vt.  121:  1102. 
v.  State,  99  Ala.  177:  292,  578, 

582,  593,  778. 
v.  West,  60  Mo.  33:  99. 
Bradshaw    v.    Lawk  ford,    73   Md. 
428:  175. 
v.  Mayfield,  18  Tex.  21:  870. 
Bradwell    v.   State,  16  Wall.  130: 

910,  1312. 
Brad  well's  Case,  55  111.  535:   910, 

1312. 
Brady  v.  Daly,  175  U.  S.  148;  988. 
v.   Mayor,   etc.   20  N.  Y.   312: 

1035. 
v.  Moulton,  61  Minn.  185:  327, 

331. 
v.   Northwestern   Ins.   Co.,   11 

Mich.  425:  1014. 
v.  Page,  59  Cal.  52:  872. 
v..  West,  50  Miss.  68:  607. 
v.    Wilkes  Barre,    161   Pa.    St. 
246:  1160. 
Brady  Street,  In  re,  99  Pa.  St,  591: 
821. 

d 


Bragg  v.  Clark,  50  Ala.  363;  674, 

677. 

v.  Grail,  86  Mo.  App.  338:  1294. 

v.  State,  134  Ala.  165:  751,  769, 

770,  1312. 

Brain  v.  Thomas,  50  L.  J.  Q  B.  Div. 

663:  639. 
Brainard  v.  Bushnell,  11  Conn.  17: 

320. 
Brake  v.  Collision,  122  Fed.  722:  93, 

94. 
Bramel  v.  Bramel,  101  Ky.  64:  763. 
Bramston  v.  Colchester,  6  E.  &  B. 

246:  583. 
Bramwell  v.   Penneck,  7  B.  &  C. 

536:  818. 
Branagan  v.  Dulaney,  8  Colo.  408: 

541,  668. 
Branch  v.  Burnley,  1  Call,  147:  868. 
v.  Lewerenz,  75  Conn.  319:  580. 
Branch  Bank  v.  Murphy,  8  Ala.  119: 

808,  1057,  1058. 
Brand   v.   Lawrenceville,   104  Ga. 

486:  300. 
Brandling  v.  Barriugton,  6  B.  &  C. 

475:  1076,  1084. 
Brandon  v.    Carter,    119  Mo.   572: 
498,  1012. 
v.  Pate,  2  H.  Black.  308:  992. 
v.  Sands,  2  Ves.  Jr.  514:  992. 
v.  State,  16  Ind.  197:  231. 
Branharn   v.  Lange,    16   Inn.  497: 
446. 
v.  Long,  78  Va.  352:  662. 
Brashears  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  45  Mo. 

App.  453:  972. 
Bratton  v.  Guy,  12  S.  C.  42:  443. 
v.  Johnson,  76  Wis.  430:  557. 
Brattleboro  Sav.   Bank   v.  Hardy 

Tp.,  98  Fed.  524:  430. 
Braun  v.  Sauerwein,  10  Wall.  218: 
456. 
v.  State,   40  Tex.   Crim.    App. 
236:  470,  779. 


xliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES    OITSD. 


Tho  raferenoea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-oo:i;  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1315. 


Brawley  v.  Mitchell.  92  Wis.  071: 

n.-.o. 
Bray  v.  Hudson,  60  N.  J.  L,  82:  378. 
v.  Wallingford,  20  Conn.  416: 

1102. 
ikenridge    v.   Commonwealth, 
97  Ky.  20.7:  731. 
Breden  v.  State.  88  Ala.  20:  532. 
Bredenburg  v.  Bardin,  36  S.  C.  197: 

:ie,  In  re,  14  Colo.  401:  191, 198, 
2-i  7. 
Breitenbaoh  v.  Bush,  44  Pa.  St.  313: 

1005,  1807. 
Breitung  v.  Lindauer,  87  Mich.  217: 

\~>9,  4G6.  986,  1201. 
Bremer  v.  Freeman.  10  Moore  R.  C. 

306:  622. 
Brenham   v.  Brenham  Water  Co., 

67  Tex.  542:  1023,  1024,  1029. 
Brennan  v.  Bradshaw,  53  Tex.  330: 
1021. 
v.  McMenamy,  78  Mo.  App.  122: 
847. 
Brenner  v.  Kansas  Mut.  Life  Ass'n, 

6  Kan.  App.  152:  814,  914. 
Brent  v.  Chapman,  5  Cr.  358:  1211. 
Bresser  v.  Saarman,  112  Iowa,  720: 

1058,  1060. 
Brett  v.  Brett,  3  Addams,  219:  650, 

654 
Bretz  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  3  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 
S.)  478:  626. 
v.  New  York,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.) 

258:  633. 
v.  New  York,  6  Robt.  325:  625, 

633. 
oort  v.  Grace,   53  N.  Y.  245: 

Brewer  v.  Blougher,  14  Pet.  178: 
711,  7.30.  936. 
v.  Brewer,  62  Me,  62:  145. 
v.  Huntingdon,  86  Tenn.  732: 

72,  I 


Brewster  v.  Syracuse,  19  N.  Y.  116: 
203,  204. 
v.  Woolridge,  100  Ga,  305:  693, 
710,  913,  915. 
Breyer  v.   State,    102    Tenn.    10:?: 

419. 
Brice  v.  State,  2  Overt  252:  31, 609, 

613. 
Bridge  v.  Branch,  L  R  1  C.  P.  Div. 

633:  912. 

Bridge  Co.  v.  Hoboken,  etc.  Co.,  13 

N.  J.  Eq.  81:  1021, 1023, 1033, 1193. 

•  man,  In  re,  1  Drew.  &  S.  169: 

11  19. 

Bridgeport  v.  Railroad  Co.,  15  Conn. 

175:   1033. 
Bridges  v.  Shallcross,  6  W.  Va.  574: 
928. 
v.  Stephens,  132  Mo.  524:  781. 
Bridge  &  Structural  Iron  Works 
Union  v.  Sigmund,  88  III.  App. 
344:  468. 
Brieswick  v.Moyer,  51  Ga.639:  185, 

252. 
Briffitt  v.  State,  58  Wis.  39:  876. 
Brig  Ann,  1  Gall.  61:  30a 
Brig  Aurora,  Cargo  of,  v.  United 

States,  7  Cranch.  382:  563. 
Briggs  v.  Allen,  4  Hill,  538:  1306. 
v.  Cottrill,  4  Strob.  86:  1169. 
v.  Hubbard,  19  Vt.  86:  641. 
v.  Smith,  83  N.  C.  306:  506. 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  Ill 
Mo.  168:  420. 
Brigham  v.  Edmunds,  7  Gray,  359: 

1019. 
Bright  v.  McCulloch,  27  Ind.  223: 

205,  423. 
Brimhall  v.  Van  Campen,  8  Minn. 

13:  611. 
Brinkerhoff  v.  Newark,  etc.  Trac- 
tion Co.,  66  N.  J.  L.  478:  263. 
Brinkley   v.   Swicegood,   65  N.   C. 
626:  544,  562. 


TABLE    OB    CASES    CITED. 


xlv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Brinsfield  v.  Carter,  2  Ga.  150:  663, 

665,  724 
Brisbane  v.  Peabody,  3  How.  Pr. 

109:  1137. 
Brisbin  v.  Farmer,  16  Minn.  215: 

681. 
Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11 

Pet.  257:  631. 
Bristol  v.  Sequeville,  5  Exch.  275: 

25,  612,  620,  622. 
Britisb  Am.  Ass'n  Co.  v.  Bradford, 

60  Kan.  82:  419. 
British  &  Am.  M.  Co.  v.  Winchell, 

62  Ark.  160:  1231. 
British  Farmers'  etc.  Co.,  In  re,  48 

L.  J.  ch.  56:  705. 
Britt  v.  Robinson,  L.  R.  5  C.  P.  513: 

961,  965. 
Brittan   v.    Election    Com'rs.   129 

Cal.  337: 13,  140. 
Broadbent    v.   State,    7  Md.   416: 

1063. 
Broaddus  v.   Broaddus,   10  Bush, 

299:  517,  520,  521,  759. 
Broadfoot  v.  Fayetteville,  128  N. 

C.  529:  1110. 

Broad  Street  Hotel  Co.  v.  Weaver's 

Administrator,  57  Ala.  26:  868. 
Broadway  Bap.  Church  v.  McAtee, 

8  Bush,  508:  1009. 
Brocaw  v.  Board,  etc.  73  Ind.  543: 

435. 
Brock  v.  Parker,  5  Ind.  538:  642. 
Brockbank  v.  Whitehaven  R.  Co., 

7  H.  &  N.  834:  640. 
Brockelbank,  In  re,  L.  R.  23  Q.  B. 

D.  461:  804. 

Brocket  v.  Ohio,  etc.  R.  R,  Co.,  14 
Pa.  St.  241:  748,  757,  864,  1022. 

Brockway  v.  Patterson,  72  Mich. 
122:  1268. 

Brodbine  v.  Revere,  182  Mass.  598: 
150. 

Brodnax  v.  Groom,  64  N.  C.  244: 86. 


Broffee  v.  Grand  Rapids,  127  Mich. 

89:  1159,  1167. 
Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311:  643, 
1190,  1200,  1202.  1207. 
v.  Newbury,   2  Doug.   (Mich.) 

38:  642. 
v.  .St.   Croix  Lumber  Co.,    44 
Minn.  348:  23. 
Brook  v.  Blue  Mound,  61  Kan.  184: 

798,  955. 
Brookfleld  v.  Kitchen,  163  Mo.  546: 

769. 
Brooklyn  El.  R.  R,  Co.,  Matter  of, 

125  N.  Y.  434:  689. 
Brooklyn  Gravel  R.  Co.  v.  Slaugh- 
ter, 33  Ind.  185: 1035. 
Brooklyn  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bledsoe,  52 

Ala.  538:  938. 
Brooklyn  &  Rockaway  Beach  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Long  Island  R.  R  Co.,  72 
App.  Div.  496:  1013,  1023. 
Brooks  v.  Boswell,  34  Mo.  474:  946. 
v.  Cock,  3  Ad.  &  E.  141:  1142. 
v.  Com'rs.,  31  Ala.  227:  660. 
v.  Cook,  44  Mich.  617:  818, 1262, 

1263. 
v.  Hicks,  20  Tex.  666:  712.  732. 
v.  Hyde,  37  CaL  375:  350. 
v.  Hydorn,  76  Mich.  273:  214, 

278,  592. 
v.  Mobile  Sch.  Com'rs,  31  Ala. 

227:  731. 
v.  People,  14   Cola    413:    298, 
970. 
Brookville  Ins.    Co.  v.  Records,  5 

Blackf.  170:  626. 
Broome    v.  Wellington,  1    Sandf. 

660:  335. 
Brophy    v.    Hyatt,  10    Cola  223: 

1139. 
Brotherhood  Ace.  Co.  v.  Lineham, 

71  N.  H.  7:  745. 
Brothers  v.  Mundell,  60  Tex.  240: 
784. 


TABLE    OF    0A8ES    OITED. 


-  :ir<>  to  tiu>  pages:  Vol  l.  i>i>.  i  on;  Vni.  11,  i>p  cor,-i3i5. 


Bro4  ,t.\  8  Cold.  301:  554 

*    Brol  herton,  41  Iowa, 

110:   68ft 

Broughton  v.  Branch  Bank,  17  Ala. 

v.  Manchester    Water    Works 
.  ft  Aid.  1:  949. 
Brower  v.   Bowers,   1    Abb.    App. 

314:  911. 
Brown,    Ex   parte,  35  Tex.   Crim. 
1814. 
d,  Iii  re,  T  Ex.  113:  804. 
Brown.  In  re.  21  Wend.  316:  77a 
Brown    v.    Balfour,   46    Minn.  G8: 
1076.  1340. 
v.  Barry,  3  Dall.  365:  456,   457, 

459,  563,  700.  B6& 
v.  Brown,  34  End.  194:  924. 
v.  Bnzan,  24  Ind.  104:  027,  027, 

v.  Challis,  23  Colo.  145:  1171. 
v.  Chancellor,  61  Tex.  437:  463. 
v.  Chicago,  117  111.  31:  320. 

mmon wealth,  OS  Ky.  652: 

mmonwealth,  100  Ky.  127: 

1185, 
v.  County   Com'rs,  21   Pa   St. 

37:  466,  530,  6 
v.  Cousens,  51  Me.  301:  505. 
t.  Denver,   7    Colo.    305:    339, 

v.  Dressier,    125   Mo.   580:  846, 

851,  1058,  1000,  1294. 
v.  Duncan,  10  B.  &  C.  93:  939. 
v.  Elms,   10  Humph.   135:  872. 
v.    Eppa,   91  Va.    726:    13,   132, 

133. 
v.    Fifield,    4    Mich.    322:    644, 

1064 
r.  11  -ischner,  4  Ore.  132:  120. 
v.  Fowzer,  114  Pa  St.  146:  1046. 
ites,  15  W.  Va.  131:  1077, 

1102. 


Brown  v.  Graham,  58  Tex.  354:  948. 
v.  Great  W,  Ky.  Co.,  9  Q.  B.  D. 

758:  464,  711. 
v.  Hamlett,  8  Lea,  732:  720. 
v.  Hart.  07  Ky.  785:  202. 
v.  Haywood,  4  Heisk.  357:  357. 
v.  Heron    Lake,  67  Minn.  146: 

469,  834 
v.  Holland,  97  Ky.  249:  158,  360, 

385. 
v.  Hughes,  89  Minn.  150:  1157, 

1161. 
v.  Jacobs  Pharmacy  Co.,  145  Ga. 

429:  -126. 
v.  Mayor,  63  N.  Y.  230:  1230. 
v.    Maryland,    12   Wheat.    419: 

672. 
v.   McCormick,   28   Mich.  215: 

400.  106,  1070. 
v.  Miller,  4  J.  J.  Marsh.  474: 

636 
v.  Milliken.  42 Kan.  700:  427. 
v.  Nash,  1  Wyo.  85:  73. 
v.   Pendergast,    7    Allen,   427: 

1251. 
v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37:  873,  877. 
v.  Point   Pleasant,  36  W.  Va. 

290:  135. 
v.   Railway  Co.,  83    Mo.    478: 

1136. 
v.  Randolph  Co.  Ct.,  45  W.  Va. 

827:  770. 
v.  Russell,  166  Mass.  14:  424. 
v.  State,  115  Ala  74:  297. 
v.  State,  5  Colo.  496:  893. 
v.  State,  73  Ga  38:  205,  221,  287, 

291. 
v.  State,  79  Ga.  324:  268. 
v.  State,  23  Md.  503:  340. 
v.  State,  88  Tenn.  566:  1002. 
v.  State.  32  Tex.  Crim.  119:  112, 

304 
v.  St.   Croix  L.   Co.,  44  Minn. 

348:  620. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


xlvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Brown  v.  Thompson,  14  Bush,  538; 
1107. 
v.  Tucker,  7  Colo.  30:  1050. 
v.  Tucker,  1  West  Coast  Rep. 

489:  1050. 
v.  United  States,  113  U.  S.  568: 

890. 
v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.  631: 

475. 
v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  591:  785. 
v.  Wilcox,  14  S.  &  M.  127:  641, 

1211. 
v.  Woods,  2  0kl.  601:  720. 
Brown  Co.  v.  Aberdeen,  4  Dak.  402: 

677,  706,  713,  722,  813,  913. 
Browne  v.  Cuming  Co.,  31  Neb.  362: 
500. 
v.  Mobile,  122  Ala.  159:  578. 
Browning  v.  Jones,  4  Humph.  69: 
463. 
v.  Wheeler,  24  Wend.  258:  1248. 
Brown's  Appeal,  72  Conn.  148:  713, 

722,  848,  913. 
Brown's  Estate,  152  Pa.  St.  401:  303, 

463. 
Brown  University  v.  Granger,  19 

R,  I.  704:  1004,  1008,  1070,  1194. 
Bruce  v.  Dodge  Co.,  20  Minn.  388: 
342. 
v.  Pittsburgh,  166  Pa.  St.  152: 

30& 
v.  Schuyler,  9  111.  221:  636. 
v.  State,  48  Neb.  570:  124. 
v.  Wood,  1  Met.  542:  610. 
Bruch  v.  Colombet,  104  CaL  347: 

35S,  36G. 
Brucker  v.  State,  19  Wis.  539:  873. 
Bruen  v.  State,  206  111.  417:  816,  825. 
Bruffett  v.  G.  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  25  111. 

353:   1193. 
Brundage,  Matter  of,  31  App.  Div. 

348:  524. 
Brundy  v.  Mayfield,  15  Mont  201: 
1020. 


Brunswick  v.  Litchfield,  2  Greenl. 

28:  640. 
Brush  v.  Scribuer,  11   Conn.  407: 
618. 
v.  Wilkins,  4  Johns.  Ch.  506: 
619. 
Bryan  v.  Board  of  Education,  90 
Ky.  322:  223,  264,  674. 
v.  Bryan,  62  Ark.  79:  1231. 
v.  Dennis,  4  Fla.  445:  845. 
v.  Sundberg,  5  Tex.  418:   516, 
518,  638. 
Bryant,  In  re,  Deady,  118:  710. 
Bryant  v.  Dakota  Co.,  53  Neb.  755: 
302,  448. 
v.  Kelton,  1  Tex.  434:  618. 
v.  Lefever,  4  C.  P.  Div.  172:  808. 
v.  Russell,  127  Mo.  422:  730. 
v.  Tidgewell,  133  Mass.  86: 1275. 
Bryson  v.  Johnson  Co.,  10  Mo.  76: 

544,  1019. 
Buchanan  v.   Commonwealth,   95 

Ky.  334:  517,  519. 
Bucher  v.  Commonwealth,  103  Pa. 
St.  528:  820. 
v.  Henderson,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  335: 
551. 
Buck  v.  Dowley,  16  Gray,  555:  1048. 
v.  Eureka,  97  Cal.  135:  644,  1076, 

1249. 
v.  Spofford,  31  Me.  34:  759. 
Buckallew  v.  Ackerman,  8  N.  J.  L. 

48:  46'.?,  481. 
Buckingham  v.  Billings,  13  Mass. 

82:  1099,  1259. 
Buckinghouse   v.   Gregg,   19    Ind. 

401:  872,  879. 
Bucklew  v.  Railroad  Co.,  64  Iowa, 

G0:J:  367. 
Buckley,  Ex  parte,  53  Ala.  42:  1158, 

1227. 
Buckley  v.  Eckert,  3  Pa.  St.  268: 
914. 
v.  Lowry,  2  Mich.  419:  1136. 


xlvni 


TAIU.K    .'I     (  ASKS    (TIED. 


The  refarenoea  are  i"  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Buoklln  v.  Ford.  :»  Barb  393:  1282. 
Bnokmaster  v.  MoElroy,  20  Neb. 

;.  1268;  1868,  1269, 
Buoknex  v.  Real  Est  Bank,  5  Ark. 

.  ::.:.  812,  B5& 
Buoka  Co.  v.  GUI,  5  Pa.  Dist  Ct. 

866:  569, 
Buoka  Co.  Prison  Board,  28  Pa.  Co. 

Ct.  65:  306. 
Buckwalter  v.   Lancaster  Ca,   12 

Pa.  Supr.  Ct  270:  53a 
Buoky  v.  Millard,  16  Fla.  330:  581. 
Budd  v.  Hancock,  00  N.  J.  L.  133: 
303,  3G8,  400. 
v.  State,  3   Humph.   483:    343, 
357,  122. 
Buell  v.  State,  72  Ind.  523:  872. 
Buelow,  In  re.  98  Fed.  86:  432,  450. 
Buffalo,  Matter  of,  6b  N.  Y.  167: 

1014,  1045. 
Buffalo  v.  Neal,  86  Hun.  76:  533. 
Buffalo  Cem.  Ass'n  v.  Buffalo,  118 

X.  Y.  61:  528,  530. 
Buffalo  City  Cem.  Ass'n  v.  Buffalo, 

46  X.  Y  506:  1002. 
Buffalo,  etc.  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  etc.  R  R. 

Co.,  10  Abb.  N.  C.  107:  878. 
Buffalo  Traction  Co.,  Matter  of,  25 

A  pp.  Div.  447:  302,  455. 
Buffham    v.   Racine,  26   Wis.  449: 

1102. 
Buford  v.  Bostick,  58  Tex.  63:  1050. 
Tucker,  14  Ala.  89:  872. 
her  v.  Prescott,  23  Fed.  20:  252, 

Buhl  v.  Kenyon,  11  Mich.  249:  1069. 
Builders  &  P.  Supply  Co.  v.  Lucas, 

ll!i 
Bulkley  v.  Eckert,  3  Pa.  St  368: 

Bull  v.  Conroe,  13  Wis.  238:  343. 
v.  Kill:.  :  ■  ,:   073,  707. 

v.  I;.  ;  :.  i:;  Gratt  88:  104,  171, 
17,'. 


Bull  v.  Rowe,  13  &  C.  355:  928. 
Bullard  v.  Bell,  1  Mason,  290:  942. 
v.   Smith,    28  Mont   387:  694, 

1159. 
v.  Ward,  89  Pa.  St.  358:  642. 
Bullock  v.  Fladgate,  1  Ves.  &  Bea. 
471:  628. 
v.  Lincoln,  2  Strange,  914:  337. 
Bumstead  v.  Govern,  47  N.  J.  L. 
368:  368. 
v.  Govern,  48  N.  J.  L.  612:  308. 
Bunce  v.  Reed,  16  Barb.  347:  330. 
Bunn  v.   Gorgas,   41   Pa.   St.   441: 

1208. 
Burch  v.  Newbury,  10  N.  Y.  374: 
19,  642,  1219. 
v.  Watts,  37  Tex.  135:  1049. 
Burden  v.  Stein,  25  Ala.  455:  010. 
Burder  v.  Veley,  12  Ad.  &  £.  20 1 : 

999. 
Burdick,  In  re,  112  Cal.  387: 
Burdine  v.  Grand  Lodge,  37  Ala. 

478,  879. 
Burfenning  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

46  Minn.  20:  605. 
Burgess  v.  Hargrove,  64  Tex.  110: 
759,  761. 
v.  Pue,  2  Gill,  11:  164. 
v.  Salmon,  97  U.   S.  381:  320, 
321,  607. 
Burget  v.  Merritt,  155  Ind.  143:  300. 
Burgett  v.   Burgett,   2  Ohio,  219: 

619. 
Burgett's  Lessee  v.  Burgett,  1  Ohio, 

219:  644,  1076. 
Burgoyne  v.  Supervisors,  5  Cal.  9: 

20,  63a 
Burhop  v.  Milwaukee,  21  Wis.  257: 

624,  627. 
Burk   v.    Putnam,    113  Iowa,  232: 

428. 
Burka  v.  Snively,  208  111.  328:  891. 
Burke  v.  Memphis,  94  Tenn.  692: 
504. 


TABLE    OF    CASES   CITED. 


xlix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Burke  v.  Monroe  County,  77 I1L  610: 

223,  659,  710,  717,  7ia 
Burke  on   Petition,   101  Ky.  175: 

1299. 
Burkhart  v.  Reed,  2  Idaho,  503:  81. 
Burkholtz  v.  State,  16  Lea,  71 :  343, 

357,  579,  602. 
Burlander  v.  Railway  Co.,  26  Wis. 

76:  519. 
Burleigh    Bldg.   Co.   v.   Merchant, 

etc.  Co.,  13  Colo.  App.  455:  420. 
Burlington  v.  Burlington,  etc.  Ry. 
Co.,  41  Iowa,  134:  558. 
v.  Burlington  Traction  Co.,  70 

Vt.  491:  559. 
v.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.,  56  N.  J.  Eq. 
259:  391,  397,  1236. 
Burlington,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bey, 
82  Iowa,  312:  143. 
v.  Thompson,  31  Kan.  180:  28. 
Burlington   Mfg.    Co.   v.  Board  of 

Com'rs,  67  Minn.  327:  1257. 
Burn  v.  Carvalho,  4  Nev.  &  M.  893: 

322. 
Burnet,  Ex  parte,  30  Ala.  461:  1033. 
Burnett  v.  Henderson,  21  Tex.  588: 
871. 
v.  Maloney,  97  Tenn.  697:  1030. 
v.  Scully,  56  Mich.  374:  1141. 
v.  Telegraph  Co.,  39  Mo.   App. 

599:  972. 
v.  Turner,  87  Tenn.  124:  435. 
Burnham  v.  Acton,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (U.  S.) 
1:  633. 
v.  Acton,  35  How.  Pr.  48:  624, 

625. 
v.  Fond  du  Lac,  15  Wis.  193: 

1102. 
v.  Milwaukee,  98  Wis.  128:  363, 

400. 
v.   Onderdonk,   41   N.   Y.  425: 

568,  910,  922,  1058. 
v.  Stevens,  38  N.  H.  249:  778. 
v.  Sumner,  50  Miss.  517:  1059, 


Burnham  v.  Webster,  5  Mass.  266: 

624,  625. 
Burns  v.  Hays,  44  W.  Va.  503:  524, 
1229. 
v.  Sewell,  48  Minn.  425:  106. 
v.  State,  104  Ga.  544:  208,  292. 
Burnside  v.  Lincoln  Co.  Ct.,  86  Ky. 
423:  229. 
v.  Whitney,  21  N.  Y.  148:  472, 
644,  862,  1248. 
Burr  v.  Dana,  22  CaL  1:  662,  710, 
729,  1107. 
v.  Ross,  19  Ark.  250:  71. 
Burrows  v.  Delta  Trans.  Co.,  106 
Mich.  582:  137,  230. 
v.  Kimball,  11  Utah,  149:  1021. 
v.  People's  Gas  Light  &  Coke 
Co.,  75  Fed.  794:  325. 
Burt  v.  Williams,  24  Ark.  91:  1210. 
v.  Winona,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  31 
Minn.  472:  72,  100. 
Burton  v.  Anderson,  1  Tex.  93:  619. 
v.  School  Com'rs,  Meigs,  589: 

357. 
v.  Snyder,  22  Colo.  173:  263. 
Burton  Stock  Car  Co.  v.  Treager, 

187  111.  10:  404,  406. 
Burwell  v.  Tullis,  12  Minn.  572:  442. 
Busby  v.  Riley,  6  S.  D.  401:  463. 
Busch  v.  Webb,  122  Fed.  655:  579. 
Bush  v.  Brainard,  1  Cow.  78:  863. 
v.  Del.  L.  &  W.  R,  R.  Co.,  166  N. 

Y.  210:  469. 
v.  District  of  Columbia,  1  App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  1:  913,915. 
v.  Republic,  1  Tex.  455:  486. 
Bushey,  In  re,  105  Mich.  64:  469. 
Busse,  Matter  of,  80  111  App.  261: 

464. 
Bussing  v.  Bushnell,  6  Hill  382:  862. 
Butcher  v.  Bank  of  Brownsville,  2 
Kan.  70:  866. 
v.  Henderson,  LE.3Q.B.  335: 
545. 


T  u:i.r.   OF   OA81  a   t'l  FED. 


Th<*  references  are  to  the  pa  fas:  VoL  1,  pp.  l  608;  VdL  II,  pp.  006  i ■  * l r». 


Boiler,  Matter  of,  58  Bun,  100:  958, 
Butler   v.    Merritt,    LIS    Ga,    288: 

r.Montolair,67N.  J.  I*  426: 897. 
v.  Palmer,  l  Hill,  324:  514.  L162, 

1160,  1287. 
v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  402: 

1194,  1195. 
v.  Robinson,  75  Mo.  192:  637. 
v.  Rochester,  4  Hun,  821:  910. 
v.  Russel,  3CliiT.  251:  564. 
v.  Shumway,  16  Colo.  95:  1258. 

1260 
v.  State,  89  Ga  831:  85,  300. 
v.  U.  S.  B.  &.  L.  Ass'n,  97  Tenn. 
679:   1231,  1236. 
Butler's  Nomination,  4  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

187:  1290 
Butner  v.  Brifenillet,  100  Ga.  743: 

564. 
Butte  &  B.  Con.   Min.  Co.  v.  Mon- 
t  a na  Ore  Purchasing  Co.,  25 Mont. 
41:  1217. 
Butte,  etc.  Min.  Co.  v.  Mont.  Ore.  P. 
Co.,  24  Mont.  125:  445,459. 
v.  Montana  Ore  Purchasing  Co., 
25  Mont.  41:  784 
Butte  Hardware  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  7 

Mont.  307:  708 
Buttfield  v.  Bidwell,  96  Fed.  328: 
158. 
v,  Shanahan,  192  U.  S.  470:  134, 
158.  880. 
Butts  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

Misa  W2:  665,  674 
Bntz   v.    Muscatine,   8   Wall.   575: 

.  Btaflford,  4  N.  D.  304:  281. 
Byous  v.  Mount,  89  Tenn.  861:  1259. 
Byrd   v.   Brown,  5  Ark.  709:  1051, 
1054 
v.  State,  57  Mi  :.  1066. 

Bywater  v.   Brandling,  7  B.  &  C. 
643:  658,  654 


c. 

Cache  Co.  v.  Jensen,  21  Utah,  207: 

1010. 
Cadogan  v.  Kennett,  2  Cowp.  432: 

1245,  1246. 
Cage  v.  Hogg,  1  Humph.  48;  1224 
Cager,  Matter  of,  111   N.  Y.   343: 

1159,  1160. 
Caha  v.  United  States,  152  U.  S. 

211:  628. 
( !ahall  v.  Citizens'  Mut.  B.  Ass'n,  61 

Ala.  232:  521. 
Cahoon  v.  Iron  Gate  L.  &  L  Co.,  92 

Va.  367:  268. 
Cain  v.  Goda.  84  Ind.  209:  314,  316. 
Cairo  v.  Coleman,  53  111.  App.  680: 

815,  826,  1031. 
(  alder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386:  485,  631, 
643,  1173,  1174 
v.  Kurby,  5  Gray,  597:  1195. 
Calderwood  v.  Est.  of  Calderwood, 

38  Vt  171:  754. 
Caldwell  v.  Alton,  33  111.  416:  1033. 
v.  Barrett,  73  Ga.  604:  171,  306. 
v.  State,  34  Ga.  18:  946. 
v.  State.  101  Ga.  557:  341. 
v.  Vanolissengen,  9  Hare,  425: 

25. 
v.  Ward,  83  Mich.  13:  112,  113. 
Caledonia  Ry.  Co.  v.  North  British 
Ry.  Co.,  L.   R.  6  App.  Cas.   114: 
704,  713,  721,  729. 
Calhoun  v.  Delhi,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  28 
Hun,  379:  443. 
v.  Kellogg.  41  Ga.  231:  1210. 
v.  Little,  106  Ga.  336:  787. 
v.  McLendon,   42  Ga.   405:    19, 
20,  1098, 
Calhoun  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  Ajax  G. 

Min.  Co.,  182  U  S.  499:  1314 
Calkin  v.  Cocke,  14  How.  227:  617. 
Calking  v.  Baldwin,  4  Wend.  667: 
625,  'J  18. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


U 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


Calkins  v.  State,  14  Ohio  St.  222: 

555. 
Call  v.  Hagger,  8  Mass.  430:  1206. 
Calladay    v.   Pilkington,   12    Mod. 

513:  1020. 
Callaghan   v.   Chipman,  59  Mich. 

610:  582. 
Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16  Colo.  471: 
243,  445,  545,  551,  1222. 
v.  St.  Louis  Merchants'  Bridge 
Terminal  R.  R.  Co.,  170  Mo. 
473:  417. 
Callam  v.  District  of  Columbia,  16 

App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  271:  516,  517. 
Callanan  v.  Judd,  23  Wis.  343:  1054. 
Callaway  v.  Harding,  23  Gratt.  547: 

673. 
Callen  v.  Junction  City,  43  Kan. 

627:  155. 
Callisv.  Waddy,  2  Munf.  511:  1282. 
Calloway  v.  Lay  don,  47  Iowa,  456: 
1264. 
v.  Willie's  Lessee,  2  Yerg.  1: 
609. 
Callum  v.  Pettigrew,  10  Heisk.  394: 

1142. 
Cally  v.  Anson,  4  Wis.  223:  1305. 
Callvert  v.  Windsor,  26  Wash.  368: 

275,  530. 
Calvert  v.  Williams,  34 Md.  672:  329. 
Cambria  Iron  Co.  v.  Ashburn,  118 

U.  S.  54:  .521,  855. 
Cambrian  Ry.  Co.'s  Scheme,  In  re, 

L.  R.  3  Ch.  278:  789,  811. 
Cambridge  v.  Boston,  130  Mass.  357: 
643. 
v.  Co.  Com'rs,  86  Me.  141:  1133. 
Cambron  v.  Omaha,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 

165  Mo.  543:  417. 
•  Camden  v.  Allen,  2  Dutch.  398:  639. 
v.  Allen,  26  N.  J.  L.  398:  917. 
v.  Anderson,  6  T.  R.  723:  459. 
v.  Varney,  63  N.  J.  L.  325:  516, 
518,  520. 


Camden,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Briggs,  22 

N.  J.  L.  623:  986. 
Cameron   v.   Blackman,  39  Mich. 
108:  869. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co,  63  Minn. 

384:  134,  429. 
v.Fay,  55  Tex.  62:  1260. 
v.   Merchants'    etc.    Bank,    37 

Mich.  240:  889. 
v.  Smith,  50  Cal.  303:  505. 
Camp   v.   Tompkins,   84    Ga.   812: 

341. 
Campau  v.  Detroit,  14  Mich.  276: 

458. 
Campbell,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  703: 

758. 
Campbell,  In  re,  197  Pa. St.  581:  303. 
Campbell  v.  Allison,  63  N.  C.  568: 
1136. 
v.  Board  of  Pharmacy,  45  N.  J. 

L.  241:  221. 
v.  Campbell,  3  Ohio  C.  C.  449: 

887. 
v.  Hall,  1  Cowp.  208:  27,  34. 
v.  Holt,  115  U.  S.  620:  1289. 
v.  Indianapolis,   155  Ind.   186: 

397,  398. 
v.  International  Life,  4  Bos.  317: 

337. 
v.  Iron  Silver  Min.  Co.,  83  Fed. 

643:  1226. 
v.  Labette  Co.  Com'rs,  63  Kan. 

377:  339. 
v.  People,  8  Wend.  636;  956. 
v.   Schlesinger,   48    Hun,   428: 
1270. 
Campbell,  etc.  Co.  v.  Nonpareil,  etc. 

Co.,  75  Va.  291:  1162. 
Campbell's  Case,  2  Bland's  Ch.  209: 

627. 
Campbell's  Registration,  201  Pa.  St. 

96:  430. 
Campbellsville  L.  Co.  v.  Hubbert, 
112  Fed.  718:  9. 


lii 


I  Vlil  1'    «'!•'    CASKS    .1  I  11'. 


Ti  <-  raforanoea  are  to  the  oagea:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  C05-1315. 


Hail  A    Am.   Volt.  &  T.    Co.  V. 

Blake,  M  Wash.  108:  1 1  'JO.  1203. 
Cana  ly  v,  George,  6  Rioh,  Eq.  103: 

ML 
Canal  ft  Walker  Sta,  Matter  of.  12 

X.  Y.  406:  946. 
canal  Co,  v.  ];.  i:.  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.  1: 
649,  680,  69a 
v.  R  \l  Go.,  1  G.&J.152:  1077. 
Canal  Com'rs  v.  East  Peoria,  179 
III.  214:  517,  51ft 
v.  People  :>  Wend.  445:  G10. 
v.  Sanitary  Dist.,   1S4  III.   597: 
651,  693,  723,  711,913,  1153, 
1154 
v.  Sanitary  Dist,  191  111.  326: 

4ea 

lee,  Ex  parte, 48  Ala.  386:  1054. 
Canfleld,  In  re,  98  Mich.  644:  1188. 
Canfield  v.  Davies,  61  N.  J.  L.  26: 
891. 

v.  Leadville,  7  Colo.  App.  453: 

Cannon  v.  Bryce,  3  B.  &  Aid,  179: 
938. 
v.  Hemphill.  7  Tex.  184:  188. 
v.  Mathes,  8  Heisk.  504:   123, 

187.  188. 
v.  Williams,  14  Colo.  21:  1255. 
Cantini  v.  Tillman,  54  Fed.  969:  94, 

292. 
Cantrell  v.  Conner,  51  How.  Pr.  45: 
1098. 
v.  Seaverns,  168I1L165:  98,510. 
Canty  v.  Sanderford,  37   Ala.    91: 
1002,  1294. 

Girardeau  v.   Riley,   52   Mo. 
544. 
Caperon  v.  Strout,  11  Nev.  304:  445, 

tal  Traction   Co.   v.    Hof,  174 
785. 

hcock,  98  Cal.  427: 


Carbaugh  v.  Sandors,  13  Pa.  Supr. 

Ct.  861:  1150. 
Carberry  v.  People,  39  111.  App.  50G: 

1013. 
Carbondale,  etc.  Road  Co.,  In  re,  3 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  460:  214,  272. 
Cardenas  v.  Miller,  106  Cal.   250: 

803. 

Cardillo  v.  People,  26  Colo.  355:  300. 

Carey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

5  Iowa,  357:  23,  869. 

v.  Giles,  9  Ga.  253:  1246. 

Carey-Lombard  Co.  v.  Partridge,  10 

Utah,  322:  731. 

I    ii    ill  v.  Power,  1  Mich.  369:  1210. 

Cargo  of   Brig  Aurora  v.   United 

States,   7  Cranch,  382:  161,  563, 

607. 

Carleton  v.  Goodwin,  41  Ala.  153: 

Lft 
Carlisle   v.    Carlisle,   2   Hair.   318: 
145. 
v.  State,  42  Ala.  523:  554. 
v.  Stitler,  1  Pen.  &  W.  6:  1005. 
Carlson,  In  re,  127  Pa.  St.  330:  1276: 
Carmichael  v.  Hays,  66  Ala.  543: 

517. 
Cannon  v.  State,  18  Ind.  450:  876. 
Carnes  v.  Red  River,  29  La.  Ann. 

608:  1225. 
Carney  v.  Hampton,  3  T.  R.  Mon. 
231:  784. 
v.  Tully,  74  111.  375:  1254. 
Carolina  Grocery  Co.  v.  Burnet,  61 

S.  C.  205:  340,  343. 
Carolina  Savings  Bank  v.  Evans, 

2-  S.  C.  521:  914,  1046. 
Carothers  v.  Wheeler,   1  Ore.  194: 

328,  332. 
Carpenter  v.  Dexter,  8  Wall.  513: 
865,  866. 
v.  Furrey,  128  Cal.  665:  300,  428. 
v.  Herrington,  25  Wend.  370: 
1005. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


liii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Carpenter  v.  Montgomery,  7  Blackf. 
415:  312,  314. 
V.Pennsylvania,  17   How.  456: 

550,  631,  1174 
v.  People,  8  Barb.  603:  645. 
Carpenter's  Case,  14  Pa.  St.  486: 

945. 
Carpy  v.  Dowdell,  129  Cal.  244;  913. 
Carr  v.  Carrollton,  8  Ohio  C.  C.  1: 
382. 
v.  Coke,  116  N.  C.  223:  60. 
v.  State,  127  Ind.  204:  458,593. 
v.  Thomas,  18  Fla.  736:  201,  255. 
Carrier,  Matter  of,  13  Banker.  Rep. 

208:  308. 
Carrier  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  79 

Iowa,  80: 1016. 
Carroll  v.   Alsup,  107   Tenn.   257: 
304,  430. 
v.  Carroll,  16  How.  275,  907. 
v.  Lessee  of  Olmstead,  16  Ohio, 

251:  627. 
v.  Mo.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

239:  1292. 
v.  State,  58  Ala.  396:674. 
Carrow  v.  Bridge  Co.,  Phil.  L.  (N. 

C.)  118:  627. 
Carson  v.  Center,  33  Ore.  512:  31. 
v.  Dal  ton,  59  Tex.  500:  872. 
v.  Love,  8Yerg.  215:  328. 
v.  Mayor,  94  Ga.  617:  300. 
v.  Railway  Co.,  88  Tenn.  646: 

21. 
v.  St.  Francis  Levee  Dist.,  59 

Ark.  513:  137. 
v.  State,  69  Ala.  235:  222,  974, 
Carson-Rand  Co.  v.  Stern   129   Mo. 

381:  711. 
Carter  v.  Balfour,  19   Ala.  814:  31, 
609,  610. 
v.  Burt,  12  Allen,  424:  486, 
v.  Commonwealth,  96  Va.  791: 

5,  10.  579. 
v  Hawley,  Wright,  74:  482. 


Carter  v.  Hobbs,  92  Fed.  594:  883. 
v.  Peak,  138  Mass.  439:  808. 
v.  Shumway,  39  N.  Y.  418: 1187. 
v.  State,  6  Cold.  537:  1054. 
Carterville  Coal  Co.  v.  Abbott,  181 
111.  495: 1076. 
v.  Abbott,  81  111.  App.  279: 1076. 
Caruthers  v.  Andrews,  2  Cold.  378: 

357. 
Carver  v.  James,  Willes,  257: 1277. 

v.  Smith,  90  Ind.  222:  506. 
Carvill   v.    Addition,   62  Me.   459: 

336. 
Cary  Hardware  Co.  v.  McCarty,  10 

Colo.  App.  200:  1255. 
Case  v.  Kelly,  133  U.  S.  21:  613. 
v.  Loftus,  43  Fed.  839:  306. 
v.  Mayor,  etc.,  30  Ala.  538:  869. 
v.  Serew,  46  Hun.  57:  875. 
v.  Storey,  L.  R.  4  Ex.  319:  804. 
v.  Wildridge,  4  Ind.  51:  701. 
Casement  v.  Fulton,  5  Moore's,  R. 

C.  141:  777. 
Casey  v.  Burt  Co.  59  Neb.  624:  1041. 

v.  Harned,  5  Iowa,  1 :  458. 
Cash  v.  State,  10  Humph,  111:  866, 

873. 
Casher  v.  Holmes,  2  B.  &  Ad.  592: 
824,  830. 
v.  Gray,  159  Mo.  588:  1261. 
Cass  v.  Dillon,  2  Ohio  St.  607:  345, 

348,  460,  511,  567. 
Cassady  v.  Grimmelman,  108  Iowa, 

695:  1283,  1284. 
Cass  County  v.  Gillett,  100  U.  S. 
585:  529. 
v.  Sarpy  Co.,  63  Neb.  813:  441 
Cassell  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  T.  Co., 

10  Ky.  L.  R.  486:  243,  452,  562. 
Cassity  v.  Storms,  1  Bush.  452:  545. 
Castelli  v.  Groom,  182  B.490:  1149. 
Casterton  v.  Vienna,  163  N.  Y.  368: 

528,  530,  538. 
Castle  v.  Burditt,  3  T.  R.  623:  329. 


TABLE    01    i  AM  S    CITED. 


Tho  ivfr . .  ■  o  i  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  l.  pp.  1  808;  Vol  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


r.istlo's  Case,  Cm  Jac.  644:  917. 
fcner  w.  Walrod,  B8  111.  171:  505, 

m  i. 

ik,  14  a  G  104:  688. 
ror.Greer.44  W.  Va  832:  11G0, 
1161,  119a 
Caswell  v.  Cook,  11  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  637, 
999. 
v.  Worth,  6  K.  &  R  E  19:  G36. 
Catawba  Toll  I!.  Co  v.  Flowers,  110 

N.  C.  881:  764, 
Catawissa  R.  R  Co.  v.  Armstrong, 

63  Pa.  St.  282:  129'?. 
Cate  v.   Martin,  70  X.  II.  135:  G93, 
707,  ■ 

Snood,  120:  466,  48a 
Catea  v.  Knight,  3  T.  R  442:  554, 

105a 
Cathcart  v.  Robinson,  5  Pet.  2G4: 

.  621,  786. 
Catlett  v.  Young,  143  111.  74:  781. 
Catiin  v.  Hull,  21  Vt.  152:  6G0,  711. 
v.  Wheeler,  49  Wis.  507:  105a 
Catril   v.  Union  Pac.  R  R  Co.,  2 

Idaho,  576:  414. 
Catron  v.  Co.  Com'rs.,  18  Colo.  553: 

185, 187,  199,  203,  289. 
Catterlin  v.  Bush,  39  Ore.  496:  1159, 

1168. 
Caulfield   v.   Hudson,   3  Cal.   389: 
1054. 
v.  Stevens,  28  Cal.  118:  1051. 
Cavanagh  v.  Boston,  139  Mass.,  426: 

1010. 
Cearfoss  v.  State,  42  Md.  406:  665, 

18  709,  712,  729,  732. 
Cecil  v.  Green,  161  111.  265:  815,  826. 
Cecil  Bank  v.  Barrey,  20  Md.  287: 

618,  622. 
Cedar  Rapids,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Car- 
roll Co.,  41  Iowa  153:  558. 
v.  Elseffer,  84  Iowa  510:  468. 
Cedar    Rapids    W.    Co.    v.    Cedar 
Rapid*  li~  Iowa,  284:  I  - 


Centerville  Coal  Co.  v.  Abbott,  81 

111.  App.  279:  1076. 
Central  Bridge  v.  Lowell,  15  Gray, 

10G:   1193. 
I  .Ml  nil   R  U.  P.  R  R  Co.  v.  Atch- 
ison, etc.  R  R  Co.,  28  Kan.  458: 
595,  G01. 
Central   City   H.    Ry.   Co.  v.  Fort 
Clark    H.    Ry.   Co.,    81    111.  523: 
1044. 
Central  Iowa  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Supervis- 
ors, 67   Iowa,  199:  401,  423,  462, 
4GG. 
Central  of  Ga,   R   R  Co.  v.  Lipp- 
raan,  110  Ga.  665:  864. 
v.  People,  5  Colo.  39:  188,  252. 
v.  State,  104  Ga.  831:  94,  125, 
194. 
Central  Park  Com'rs,  Matter  of,  50 

X.  Y.  493:  520. 
Central  Plank  Road  Co.  v.  Hanna- 

man,  22  Ind.  484:  221. 
Central  R  R    Co.   v.   Gamble,  77 
Ga.  584:  872. 
v.  Hamilton,  71   Ga.   461:  447, 

465,  855. 
v.  Swint,  73  Ga.  651:  98. 
Central  Transportation  Co.  v.  Pull- 
man's Palace  Car  Co.,  139  U.  S. 
24:  1021. 
Central   Trust  Co.  v.   Sheffield  & 
B.  Coal,  etc.  Co.,  42  Fed. 
106:  807. 
v.  Sloan,  65  Iowa,  655:  367,  413. 
Central  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fehring, 

14G  Ind.  189:  229. 

Chadwick  v.  Moore,  8  W.  &  S.  49: 

1206. 

v.  Tatem,  9  Mont.  354:  469. 

Chaffe  v.  Aaron,  62  Miss.  29:  1226. 

Chaffee's    Appeal,    56    Mich.    244: 

1047,  1111. 
Chalfant  v.   Edwards,  173  Pa.  St. 
246:  83,  127,  128,  410. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


h 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Chalfant  v.  Edwards,  176  Pa.  St. 

67:  538,  539. 
Chamberlain   v.    Chamberlain.    43 
N.  Y.  424:  488,  490,  512. 
v.  Evansville,  77  Ind.  542:  551, 

556. 
v.  Iowa    Telephone     Co.,    119 

Iowa,  619:  767. 
v.  Western  Trans.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 
305:   1243. 
Chambers  v.  Carson,  2  Whart.  9: 
778. 
v.  Dickson,  2  Serg.  &  R  475: 

911. 
v.  Solner,  1  Alaska,  271:  135. 
v.  State,  25  Tex.  307:  457. 
Chamlee  v.  Davis,  115  Ga.  266:  86, 

128,  446,  1302. 
Champion   v.   Kille,    15  N.  J.  Eq. 

476:  869. 
Chan  v.  Brandt,  45  Minn.  93:  39. 
Chance  v.  Adams,  1  Lord  Raym. 

77:  630,  648. 
Chancellor  v.  Elizabeth,  64  N.  J.  L. 

502:  423. 
Chancellor  of  Oxford,  The  Case  of, 

10  Coke,  57:  628. 
Chandler    v.  Hanna,  73   Ala.  390: 
473,  1056,  1057. 
v.  Nash,  5  Mich.  409:  1051, 1054. 
v.  Nilett,  2    Saund.  120:  1278, 
1282. 
Chaney  v.  State,  31  Ala.  342:  643, 

1228. 

Chapin  v.  Crusen,  31  Wis.  209:  674. 

v.  Curtenius,  15  111.  427:  1096. 

v.  Persse     &     Brooks     Paper 

Works,  30  Conn.  461:  959, 

1055,  1254. 

Chapman,  In  re  (1896),  1  Ch.  323: 

1160. 
Chapman,  In  re,  166  U.  S.  661:  955. 
Chapman  v.  Foster,  6    Allen,  136: 
911. 


Chapman  v.  McGrath,  163  Mo.  292: 
1261. 
v.  Miller,  128  Mass.  209:  710. 
v.  Milvian,  5  Exch.  61:  490. 
v.  State,  16  Tex.  App.  76:  79a 
v.  Woodruff,  34  Ga.  98:  830. 
Chapoton  v.  Detroit,  38  Mich.  636: 

462. 
Chappell  v.  United  States,  81  Fed. 

764:  792,  847,  854. 
Chapron   v.    Cassaday,  3  Humph. 

661 :  610. 
Chard  v.  Holt,  136  N.  Y.  30:  562. 
Charles  Baumbach  Co.   v.  Singer, 

86  Wis.  329:  1235. 
Charles  River  Bridge   v.  Warren 

Bridge,  11  Pet.  420:  548,  643,  861, 

1022,  1023,  1024. 
Charless  v.  Lamberson,  1  Iowa,  435: 

312,  325,  1098,  1258. 
Charles  St.  Ave.  Co.  v.  Merryman, 

10  Md.  536:  715. 
Charleston  v.  Johnston,  170  111.  336: 

788. 
Charleston  &  Southside  B.  Co.  v. 

Kanawha  Co.  Cfc,  41  W.  Va.  658: 

134. 
Charlestown  v.  County  Com'rs,  3 

Met.  202:  1039,  1044. 
Charlotte  v.  Chouteau,  33  Mo.  194: 
618,  622. 
v.  Shepard,  122  N.  C.  602:  92, 95. 
Charter  v.  Greame,  13  Q.  B.  216: 

1117. 
Chartered  Mercantile  Bank,  etc.  v. 

Wilson,  L.  R.  3  Ex.  D.  108:  809. 
Chase  v.  Insurance  Co.,  9  Allen,  311: 

611. 
Chealy    v.    Brewer,   7    Mass.    259: 

1077. 
Cheatham  v.  Brien,  3  Head,  552: 

1116. 
Cheek  v.  Commonwealth,  100  Ky. 

1:  766. 


lvi 


TABLE    OF   OASES   <i  i  i  D. 


rencesan  to  the  pager  VoL  I,  ]>p  1  608;  Voi  II,  pp.  BOB  1815. 


Cheever  v.  Wilson.  0  Wall.  108:  11, 
Chegaray  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  13  N.  Y. 
Cheltenham  Tp.  Road,  140  Pa.  St. 

Chenango  Bridge  Co.  v.  Bingham- 

ton  Bridge  Co.,  27  N.  Y.  87:  548. 
Cherry  0\  v.  Marion  Over- 

528:  1186. 
Chesapeake  &  i  '  Canal  Co.  v.  Bail- 

.  i  Gill  &  J.  1:  700. 
Chesapeake  &  P.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Man- 
ning, 186  U.  S.  238:  674,  926. 
Chesney  v.  MoClintook,  Gl  Kan.  94: 

S6,  87,  339. 
Chesnut   v.    Elliott,    Gl  Miss.    569: 
1132. 
v.  Shane,  16  Ohio,  599:  888,  889, 
901,  1229. 
Chester  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  9  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct  517:  1314. 
v.  Pennell,  169  Pa.  St.  300:  464, 
1232. 
Chester  &   Cheraw  R.   R.   Co.   v. 
Marshall,  40  S.  C.  59:  1161,  1283, 
1284. 
Chester    Glass   Co.    v.  Dewey,   16 

Masa  102:  1037. 
Chew  v.  Calvert,  1  Walk.  (Miss.)  54: 

34. 
Chew  Heong  v.  United  States,  112 

U.  S.  536:  466,  1070. 
Chicago  v.  Chicago,  207 I1L  37:  1003, 
1004 
v.  Hanseddy,  102    I1L    App.  1: 

510. 
v.  Hasley,  25  111.  595:  1103. 
v.  Vulcan  Iron  Works,  93  111. 
222:  335. 
Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Avoca, 
99  Iowa,  556:  410,  1032. 
zarth,91  III.  App. 68:  1248. 
v.  Chapman,  183  III.  96:  020. 


Chicago,  etc.  R.  R,  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

121  III.  176:  1011. 
v.  Chicago,  etc,  R.  R,  Co.,  112 

111.  589:  1043. 
v.  Doyle,  60  Miss.  977:  27. 
v.  Dunn,  52  111.  260:  G44. 
v.  Eaton,  59  Neb.  698:  847. 
v.  Forest  Co.,  95  Wis.  80:  407. 
v.  Glover,  159  Ind.  166:  135. 
v.  Guthrie,  192  111.  579:  1226. 
v.  Hartshorn,  30  Fed.  Rep.  541: 

558. 
v.  Iowa,  04  U.  S.  155:  411. 
v.  Jones,  149  111.  361:  580. 
v.  Lane,  130  111.  116:  846. 
v.  McGlinn,  114  U.  S.  542:  34. 
v.  Ottumwa,  112  Iowa,  300:  999, 

1013. 
v.  People,  67  111.  11:  9G2. 
v.  Smith,  78  111.  96:  645. 
v.  Smythe,  103  Fed.  376:  86,  88. 
v.  State,  153  Ind.  134:  300,  846, 

1064. 
v.  Sturgis,  44  Mich.  538:  1020. 
v.  Wiltse.  116  111.  449:  1041. 
v.  Wolfe,  61  Neb.  502:  112. 
v.  Zernecke,  59  Neb.  689:  847. 
Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dillon,  13 

Colo.  App.  196:  1258. 
Chicago  Packing  Co.  v.  Chicago,  88 

111.  221:  1195. 
Chicago  Pub.   Stock  Exchange  v. 

McClaughry,  148  111.  372:  1154. 

Chicago  Theological   Seminary  v. 

Illinois.  188 U.  S.  662:  1004, 

1008,  1070. 

v.  People,  189  111.  439:  1003. 

Chicago  Title  &  T.  Co.  v.  O'Marr, 

18  Mont.  568:  557. 
Chicago  Union  Traction  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, 109  111.  484:  815,  827. 
Chicot  v.  Davies,40  Ark.  200:  95. 
Chidsey  v.  Scranton,  70  Miss.  449: 
567.  " 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


lvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Childs  v.  Hill,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
162:  1191. 
v.  Shower,  18  Iowa,   261:  458, 

593,  601. 

v.  Smith,  55  Barb.  45:  920, 1140. 

v.  State,  97  Ala.  49:  455,  1117. 

Chiles  v.  Drake,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  150: 

199. 

v.   Smith's   Heirs,   13  B.  Mon. 

460:  329,  332. 
v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  37:  918, 
Chipman  v.  Wayne  Co.  Auditors, 

127  Mich.  490:  301. 
Chippewa    Falls  v.   Hopkins,   109 

Wis.  611:  573. 
Chisholm  v.  Northern  Transporta- 
tion Co.,  61  Barb.  363:  1058. 
v.  Shields,  21  Ohio  C.  C.  231: 

707,  779. 
v.  Weisse,  2  Okl.  611:  784. 
Chmelir  v.   Sawyer,  42  Neb.  362: 

1268. 
Choate  v.  Buffalo,  39  App.  Div.  379: 

455. 
Choctaw,  O.  &  G.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Alex- 
ander, 7  Okl.  579:  649,  651,  703. 
Chollar  Mining  Co  v.  Wilson,  66 

Cal.  374:  1140. 
Chouteau  v.  Allen,  70  Mo.  290:  939. 
v.   Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,    122  Mo. 

375:  933. 
v.  Pierre,  9  Mo.  3:  606,868. 
Christie  v.  Bayonne,  64  N.  J.  L.  181: 
362. 
v.  Life  Indemnity  &  Invest.  Co., 

82  Iowa,  360:  221,  416. 
v.  Umwin,  3  Perry  &  Davison, 
298:  1048. 
Christopherson  v.  Lotinga,  15  C.  B. 
(U.  S.)  809:  1097. 
v.  Lotinga,  33  L.  J.  C.  P.  123: 
793. 
Christy    v.    Board    of   Suprs.,    39 
Cal.  3:  583. 


Christy  v.  Pridgeon,  4  Wall.  196: 

614. 
Church,  Matter  of,  28  Hun,  476:  608. 
Church  v.  Crocker,  3  Mass.  17:  853, 
910. 
v.  Detroit,  64  Mich.  571 :  252. 
v.  Hubbart,  2  Cranch,  187:  618, 

622,  869. 
v.  Rhodes,  6  How.  Pr.  281 :  463, 

551,  553. 
v.  Stadler,  16  Ind.  463:  671. 
Churchill  v.   Crease,  5  Bing.  177: 
532,  660. 
v.  Georgia  R.  &  B.  Co.,  10S  Ga. 
265;  749. 
Church    of   the    Holy  Trinity    v. 
United  States,  143  U.  S.  457:  650, 
743,  880,  881,  924. 
Cicero  v.   McCarthy,  172  I1L  279: 

788. 
Cicero,  etc.  Co.  v.  Craighead,  28  Ind. 

274:  880. 
Cincinnati  v.  Conover,  55  Ohio  St. 
82:  514,  848,  999,  1012. 
v.   Rosche  Bros.,   50   Ohio  St. 

103:  397. 
v.  Steinkamp,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  178: 
391. 
Cincinnati  College  v.  State,  19  Ohio, 

110:  1002. 
Cincinnati,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Carth- 
age, 36  Ohio  St.  631:  1193. 
v.  Com'rs,  1  Ohio  St.  77:  145, 

148,  170. 
v.  Hedges,  63  Ohio  St.  339: 1163. 
v.  Thieband,  114 Fed.  91S:  417. 
Citizen's  Bank  v.  Parker,  192  U.  S. 

73:  960,  1007. 
Citizens'  Gas  L.  Co.  v.  Alden,  44  R 

J.  L.  648:  635. 
Citizens'  Gas  &  Min.  Co.  v.  Elwood, 

114  Ind.  332:  1024,  1029. 
Citizens'  Life  Ins.  Co.   v.  Commis- 
sioner, 128  Mich.  85:  769. 


lviii 


TABLE    >'i     OASES    OITED 


Tlu>  refereaeea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  l.  pp,  1  008;  Veil  n.  pp,  608  1816. 


Bank  v.  Graham,  1 17 
Ma 

8av.    Bank    v.    Auditor 
ial.  128 Mich. 511:  889. 
v.  Green,  178  N.  Y.  815:  9. 

Bank  v.  Smont,  69 
Neb.  228:  L294. 

St  II.  K.Co.  v.  Haugli,  112 
Ind.  254: 

v.  McMiohael,  12  Pa.  Disk  Ct. 

128. 
v.  Railroad   Co.,   35  La.    Ann. 

1227. 
v.  Schel linger,  15  Phila.  50:  708, 
71 'J. 
City  Bank  v.  Huie,  1  Rob.  (La.)  236; 

659,  731 
City  Council  v.  Adams,  51  Ala.  449: 
831. 
v.  Baptist  Church,  4  Strob.  300: 

4.->  7. 
v.  Birdsong,  120  Ala.  632:  194, 

197,  455. 
v.  National  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  108 

Ala.  336:  185,  407,  527. 
v.  Plank  R  Co.,  31  Ala.  76: 1033. 
v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  74  Ga.  658: 

253,  261. 
v.  Wright,  72  Ala.  411:  345. 
City   By.  Co.   v.  Citizens'  St.  R.  R, 

Co.,  166  U.  S.  557:  1160,  1161. 
Canton  v.  Barnes,  50  Ala.  260:  019. 
Clare  v.  State,  68  Ind.  17:  435. 

v.  State,  5  Iowa,  509:  59,  881. 
Clarence  Ry.  Co.  v.  Great  North  of 
Eng.  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  13  M.  &  W.  700: 

on  Bank  v.  Gruber,  87  Pa.  St. 

Clarion  Borough's  Appeal,  189  Pa, 

170. 
Clark  v.  Brown,  18  Wend.  213:  1057. 
v.  Bynum,  3  McCord,  298:  654, 

055. 


(.'lark   v.  Clark.  10  N.  II.  891:    1226 
v.  County  Com'rs,  51  Kan.  634: 

804. 
V.Crane,    5    Mich.    151:    1187, 

1139. 
v.  Davenport,    14     Iowa,    495: 

1033. 
v.  Dewey,  5  Johns.  251:  1300. 
v.  Dotter,  54  Pa.  St.  215:  895. 
v.  Elizabeth,  01   N.    J.  L.  505: 

1150,  1152. 
v.  Ellis.  2  Blackf.  8:  589. 
v.  Ewing,  87  111.  344:  330. 
v.  Farrington,  11  Wis.  306:  1037. 
v.  Finley,  93  Tex.  171:  8,  200, 

279,  370,  398,  447. 
v.  Gaskarth,  8  Taunt.  431:  817. 
v.  Hague.  2  E.  &  E.  281:  837. 
v.  Hardiman,2Leigh,317:  1281 
v.  Holmes,  1  Doug.  (Mich.)  390: 

922,  1048. 
v.  Huey,  12  Ind.  App.  224: 125a 
v.  Janesville,  10  Wis.  136:  318, 

321,  346,  624,  625,  632,  864, 


Kent,  80  111.  App.  128:  736. 
Koplin,  6  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  462: 

464. 
Lamoreux,  70  Wis.  508:  1145. 
Lancy,  178  Mass.  460:  1311 
Martin,  3  Grant's  Cas.  393- 

1210. 
Mayor,  29  Md.  283:  698. 
McCann,  18  Hun,  13:  505. 
Middleton,  19  Mo.  53:  938. 
Mowyer,  5  Mich.  462:  889. 
Railroad  Co.,  81  Me.  477:  703» 
Richardson,  15  N.  J.  L.  347. 

1282. 
Rohinson,  88  III.  498:  1143. 
Schatz,  24  Minn.  300:  1154 
Smith,  13  Pet.  195:  613. 
United  States,  19  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  295:  552,  1164. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Clark  v.  Utica,  18  Barb.  451:  747, 
751. 
v.  Washington,  12  Wheat.  40: 

1009. 
v.  Wilkie,  4  Strob.  259:  1026. 
Clark,  Dodge  &  Co.  v.  Davenport, 

14  Iowa,  494:  1009. 
Clarke  v.  Bradlaugh,  L.  R.  7  Q.  B. 
Div.  69:  788. 
v.  Brookfield,  81  Mo.  503:  949. 
v.  Darr,  156  Ind.  692:  264. 
v.  Gibbons,  83  N.  Y.  107:  505. 
v.  Irwin,  5  Nev.  124;  340. 
v.  Pratt,  20  Ala.  470:  23. 
v.  Rochester,  28  N.  Y.  605:  159, 

170. 

v.  State,  23  Miss.  261:  473,  1186. 

Clark's  Appeal,  58  Conn.  207:  675. 

Clark's  Appeal,  100  Mich.  448:  1261. 

Clark's    Estate,   195    Pa.   St.    520: 

427. 
Clark's  Run,  etc.  T.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 96  Ky.  525:  889,  896. 
Clark's  Succession,  11  La.  Ann.  124: 

665. 
Clarkson  v.  R  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  304: 

645. 
Claw  v.  Chapman,  125  Mo.  101: 1294. 
Clawson   v.   Eichbaum,   2  Grant's 
Cas.  130:  320. 
v.  Pimrose,  4  Del.  Ch.  643:  29 

608. 
v.  United  States,  114  U.  S.  477: 
1053. 
Clay  v.  Central  R.  &  B.  Co.,  84  Ga. 
345:  239,  757. 
v.  Iseminger,  187  Pa.  St.  108: 

1287. 
v.  Mayr,  144  Mo.  376:  1159, 1101, 
1164,  1295. 
Clay  County  v.  Society  for  Savings, 

104  U.  S.  579:  463. 
Clay  Co.  Suprs.  v.  Chickasaw  Co. 
Com'rs,  64  Miss.  534:  520. 
e 


Claydon  v.  Green,  L.  R.  3  C.  P.  521: 

691. 
Clayton's  Case,  5  Coke,  1:  329. 
Clearfield  Co.  v.  Cameron  Tp.,  135 

Pa.  St.  86:  303. 
Cleary  v.  Hoobler,  107  111.  97:  1158. 
Clem  v.  State,  33  Ind.  418:  357. 
Clements  v.  Anderson,  46  Miss.  598: 
846. 
v.  Smith,  3  E  &  E.  238:  1097. 
Clementson  v.  Mason,  L.  R.  10  C.  P. 
209:  709,  722. 
v.  Williams,  8  Cranch,  72:  1016. 
Clemmensen  v.  Peterson,  35  Ore. 

47:  186,  267. 
Cleveland,   Petition  of,  In  re,  52 

N.  J.  L,  188:  174,  360. 
Cleveland  v.  Spartenburg,  54  S.  C. 

83:  177. 
Cleveland,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Eire,  27 
Pa.  St.  380:  1033. 
v.  People,  205  111.  582:  1010. 
v.  Rowan,  66  Pa.  St.  393:  1292. 
v.  Speer,  56  Pa.  St.  325:  1022. 
v.  Wells,  65  Ohio  St.  313:  555, 
964. 
Cline  v.  Greenwood,  10  Ore.  230: 

927. 
Clinton    v.    Draper,   14    Ind.    295: 
202. 
v.  Englebrecht,  13  Wall.  434: 

895. 
v.  Henry  Co.,  115  Mo.  557:  1004, 

1311. 
v.Phillips,  7  T.  B.  Mon.   117: 

1136. 
v.  Walliker,  98  Iowa,  655:  1230, 
1232,  1237. 
Clinton    Ave.,  Matter  of,  57  App. 

Div.  1G6:  302. 
Clinton  Water  Com'rs  v.  Dwight, 

101  N.  Y.  9:  204. 
Cliquot's  Champagne,  3  Wall.  114: 
993. 


TAP.]  1      OF    CAS1  S    CITKl). 


The  reference!  mv  to  the  pases:  Vol  I,  pp.  i-60:v,  Vol.  n,  pp.  ("or.-isi5. 


d  v.  Trenton,  48  N.  J.  L,  488: 

Clough  v.  Curtis,  a  Idaho,  588:  81. 
Clow   v.  Chapman,    125    Mo.  101: 
1295. 
v.  Harper,  L  R.  3  Ex.  Div.  198: 

ClufE   v.  Insurance  Co.,  13  Allen, 
61L 
;  v.  Cowhiok,  9  Wyo.  316:  786. 
Coal  heavers'  Case,  1  Leach  C.   C. 

G4:  933. 
Coatea  v.  Maokey,  56  Md.  416:  866. 

v.  Hose,  1  Brock.  539:  614. 
Coats  v.  Barrett,  49  111.  App.  275: 
957. 
v.  Hill,  41  Ark.   149:  462,  483, 
511,  567. 
Coateworth  v.  Burr,  11  Mich.  199: 

754. 
Cobb   v.   Bred,  40  Minn.  479:  369, 
386,  422. 
v.  Vary,  120  Ala.  263:  455. 
Coburn  v.   Dodd,  14  Ind.  347:  605, 
866. 
v.  Harvey,  18  Wis.  147:  609. 
Cocciola  v.  Wood-Die kerson  Supply 
Co.,  136  Ala.  532:  713,  728,  924, 
1255,  1256. 
Cochran   v.   Baker,   60  Miss.   282: 
1232. 
v.  Harvey,    83    Ga.   352:    771, 

1259. 
v.  Library    Co.,   6   Phila.   492: 

849,  050. 
v.  State,  36  Tex.  Crim.  App.  115: 

v.  Taylor,  13  Ohio  St.  382:  550. 
Cochrane  v.  King  Co.,  12  Wash.  518: 
519,  564. 
k  v.  Bunn,  6  John.  326:  328,331, 

rell  v.  Gailey,  26  Ala.  470:  23. 
Cody  v.  Murphy,  89  Cal.  522:  408. 


Coe  v.  Caledonia,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  27 
Minn.  197:  327. 
V.  Lawrence,  1  E  &  B.  516:  969. 
v.  Schultz.  47  Barb.  64:  148. 
Coffield  v.  State,  44  Neb.  417:  784. 
Coffin  v.  Rich,  45  Me.  507:  515,  561, 
695,  699,  729,  1071. 
v.  State,  7  Ind.  157:  643. 
Coffman  v.  Daveny,  2  How.  (Miss.) 

854:  1136. 
Coghill  v.  State,  37  Ind.  Ill:  482. 
Cohen  v.  Barrett,  5  Cal.  195:  648, 

049. 
Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264: 

39,  887. 
Cohn  v.  Neeves,  40  Wis.  393:  646, 
979,  1019. 
v.  People,  149  111.  486:  230,  651. 
Cohoes  Co.  v.  Goss,  13  Barb.  137: 

1137. 
Col  bran  v.  Barnes,  11  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

244:  711. 
Col  burn  v.  Swett,  1  Met.  232:  932. 
Colby  v.  Dennis,  36  Me.  9:  549,  558. 

v.  Knapp,  13  N.  H.  175:  110. 
Colcord  v.  Conroy,  40  Fla.  97:  1297. 
Colden   v.   Eldred,   15  John.    220: 

1057. 
Cole  v.  Anne,  40  Minn.  80:  1050. 
v.   Bentley,   26  111.   App.   260: 

784. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  47 

Mo.  App.  624:  730,  1312. 
v.  Circuit  Judge,  106  Mich.  692: 

789,  790. 
v.  Commonwealth,  101  Ky.  151: 

1310. 
v.  Coulton,  2  E.  &  E.  695:  484. 
v.  Groves,  134  Mass.  471:  986. 
v.  Hall,  103  111.  30:  218. 
v.  Humphries,  78  Miss.  163:  909. 
v.  Muscatine,  14  Iowa,  296:  917, 

1310. 
v.  Perry,  6  Cow.  584:  1131. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Cole  v.  Perry,  8  Cow.  214:  645. 

v.  Skrainka,  105  Mo.  303:  717, 

722. 
v.   Supervisors,   11  Iowa,  552: 

494. 
v.  Thayer,  8  Cow.  249:  639. 
v.  White  Co.,  32  Ark.  45:  931. 
Colehan  v.  Cook,  Willes.  395:  653, 

656. 
Coleman  v.  Ballandi,  22  Minn.  144: 
1200. 
v.  Davidson  Academy,  Cooke, 

(Tenn.)258:  853. 
v.  Davis,  13  Colo.  98:  1127. 
v.  Dobbins,  8  Ind.  156:  609,  882. 
v.  Holmes,  44  Ala.  124:  1016. 
v.  Newby,  7  Kan.  88:  146,  148. 
Cole    Mfg.  Co.  v.  Falls,  90  Tenn. 
466: 134,  222,  303, 937. 
v.  Falls,  92  Tenn.  607:  443. 
Colgate  v.  Penn.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  127: 

645. 
Colley  v.  London,  etc.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Ex.  Div.  277:639. 
Collier  v.  Early,  54  Ind.  559:  1270, 
1271,  1272. 
v.  Worth,  L.  R.  1  Exch.  464: 
956. 
Collier  &  C.  L.  Co.  v.  Henderson, 

18  Colo.  259:  115. 
Collin  v.  Knoblock,  25  La.   Ann. 

263:  701. 
Collins  v.  Bingham  Bros.,  22  Ohio 
C.  C.  533:  458. 
v.  Carman,  5  Md.  503:  911.  915, 

1072. 
v.  Chase,  71  Me.  434:  462,  466. 
v.  East  Tenn.  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  9 

Heisk.  841:  1200,  1217. 
v.  Henderson,  11  Bush,  74:205. 
v.  Mi  lien,  57  Ohio  St.  389:  779, 

780. 
t.  Russell,  107  Ga.  423:  278,  446, 
566. 


Collins  v.  State,  97  Ga.  433:  727. 
v.  Warren,  63  Tex.  311:  561. 
v.  Welch,  L.  R.  5  C.  P.  D.  27: 

665,  750. 
v.  Wilhot,  35  Mo.  App.  585: 781. 
Colorado  v.  Com'rs.,  78  Me.  532:577. 
Colorado    Cemetery    v.   Arapahoe 

Co.,  30  Cola.  507:  899. 
Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Len- 

hart,  6  Cola  App.  511:  988. 
Colorado  Milling  &  EL  Co.  v.  Mit- 
chell, 26  Colo.  284:  220. 
Colorado  Springs  L.  S.  Co.  v.  God- 
ding, 20  Colo.  71:706. 
Colquhoun  v.  Heddon,  L.  R.  25   Q. 

B.  D.  129,  952. 
Colt  v.  Eves,  12  Conn.  243:  1117. 
Columbia  T.  Co.  v.  Haywood,    10 

Wend.  422:  328,  330,  331. 
Columbia  W.  P.  Co.  v.  Columbia 
Elec.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  172  U.  S.   475: 
749. 
Columbia  Wire  Co.  v.  Boyce,  104 

Fed.  172:  436,  440. 
Columbus  Ins.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  18  Mo. 

229:  938. 
Columbus    Southern    Ry.    Co.    v. 

Wright,  89  Ga.  574:  300,  428. 
Col  well   v.  Chamberlin,  43  N.  J.  L. 
387:  431,  432,  581. 
v.  May,  etc.  Co.,  19  N.  J.  Eq. 
245:  927. 
Combe  v.  Pitt,  3  Burr.  1423:  319. 
Comer  v.  Folsom,  13  Minn.  219:  643. 
v.   State,  103  Ga.  69:  230,  5S5, 
7S3,  857,  858. 
Comfort  v.  Kittle,  81   Iowa,   179: 

797,  803. 
Commercial  Bank  v.  Chambers,  8 
S.  &M.  9:  464,473,512,668. 
v.    Eastern    Banking    Co.,   51 

Neb.  766:  1159. 
v.  Foster,  5  La.  Ann.  516:  664, 
710,  712,  722,  1102. 


Ixu 


TA1JLK    OF    CASKS    CI  I  ED. 


r,-n,os  ar<>  to  the  pn:,-os:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-G03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1815. 


Commercial  Bank  v.  Ives,  9  Hill, 

v.  Markham,  3  La.    Ann.  G98: 
1227. 
;  Iford,  108  Fed.  98:  1010. 
v    S]    now,   J  Uenio.  97:  605, 

Commercial  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Mac- 
kenzie, 85  Md.  132:  694,  730,  88.1. 
Comn  of  Sinking  Fund  v. 

Grainger,  98  K'y.  319:  503. 
Commissioners,  In  re,  49  N.  J.  L. 

488:  250. 
Commissioners  v.  Andrews,  18  Ohio 
St.  64:  1028. 
v.  Ballard,  69  N.  C.  18:  927. 
v.  Deboe.  43  III.  App.  23:  462. 
v.  Harrison,  L.  R  7;  H.  L.  9: 

v.  Higginbotham,  17  Kan.  75: 

97. 
v.  Keith,  2  Pa.  St.  218:  674. 
v.  Mighels,  7  Ohio  St.  109.  1033. 
v.  Northern  Bank,  1  Met.  (Ky.) 

171:  5-17. 
v.  Rosche,50  Ohio  St.  103:  407, 

1171. 
v.  Silvers,  22  Ind.  491:  927. 
v.  State,   12  Ohio   C.   C.    200: 

424. 
v.  State,  50  Ohio  St.  653:  424. 
Commissioners    of    Highways    v. 

Jackson,  165  111.  17:  846. 
Commissioners    of    Lunatic    Asy- 
lums, In  re,  8  Irish  Rep.  Eq.  series, 
360. 
Commissioners  of  Public  Schools  v. 
County  Coinr-.,  20  Md.  449:  1150. 
Commissioners  of  Sedgwick  Co.  v. 

Bailey.  13  Kan.  007:  187. 
Common  Council,  Ex  parte,  3  Cow. 
1137. 
mon   Council   v.   Schmid,  128 
Midi.  .',70:  113,215,  236. 


Commonwealth  v.  Ad  dams,  95  Ky. 

588:  156. 
v.  Alger,  7  Cush.  53:  659,  709. 
v.  Allegheny  Co.,  168    Pa.  St. 

303:  491,  890. 
v.  Allegheny  Co.  Com'rs,  40  Pa. 

St.  348:  488. 
v.  Anderson,    178  Pa.   St.  171: 

401. 
v.  Angle,  3  Pa.  Dist.   Ct.  637* 

528. 
v.  Ayers,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  352: 

582. 
v.  Ayers,  17  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  352, 

257. 
v.   Bailey,  13  Allen,   541:  545, 

910. 
v.  Barnett,  199  Pa.  St.  161:  111. 
v.  Barney,  24  Ky.  L.  R.  2352: 

230,  585,  651,  652,  694,  696, 

736,  846,  851. 
v.  Basham,  101  Ky.  170:  468. 
v.  Baum,  28  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  332:  303. 
v.  Beatty,  15  Pa.  Supr.   Ct.  5: 

230. 
v.  Beatty,  1  Watts,  382:  551. 
v.  Bennett,  108  Mass.  27:  171, 

678. 
v.  Blackley,   198  Pa.   St.  372: 

394,  535. 
v.  Bradley,  16  Gray,  241:  642, 

1226. 
v.  Breed,  4  Pick.  460:  627. 
v.  Brown,  167  Mass.  144:  1188. 
v.  Brown,  91  Va.  762:  186,  191, 

205,  232,  238,  242,  218. 
v.  Cain,  14  Bush,  525:  527,  554. 
v.  Cambridge,  20  Pick.  267:  659, 

910. 
v.  Carey,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  293:  407. 
v.  Charity  Hospital,  198  Pa.  St. 

270:  222,  250. 
v.  Churchill,   2  Met.   118:   492, 

562,  564,  610. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


Commonwealth    v.    Clark,    3    Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  141:  207. 
v.  Clark,  14  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  435: 

418. 
v.  Commissioners,  etc.,  37  Pa. 

St.  237:  1053. 
v.  Conyngham,  66  Pa.  St.  99: 

660,  712,  719,  942. 
v.  Cooley,  10  Pick.  37:  481,  517. 
v.  Coombs,  2  Mass.  489:  1040, 

1044. 
v.  Cooper,  12  Pa.  Disk  Ct.  199: 

210. 
v.  Costley,  118  Mass.  1:  888. 
v.  Cotton,  14  Phila.  667:  528. 
v.  Council  of  Montrose,  52  Pa. 

St,  391:  711. 
v.  Crowley,  1  Ashm.  179:  518. 
v.  Cullen,  13  Pa.  St.  133:  1193. 
v.  Curry,  4  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  356: 

293,  685, 1064,  1065. 
v.  Darlington,   8  Pa.  Disk  Ct. 

237:  256. 
v.  Davidson,  4  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  172: 

1020. 
v.  De  Camp,   177  Pa.   St.   112: 

466,  467,  469. 
v.  Denworth,   145  Pa.  St.  172: 

860. 
v.  Depuy,  148  Pa.  St.  201:  200, 

230,  288. 
v.  Dickert,  195  Pa.  St.  234:  272. 
v.  Dorsey,  103  Mass.  412:  1182. 
v.  Drain,  99  Ky.  162:  422. 
v.  Duane,  1  Binn.  601:  20,  660, 

709. 
v.  Duff  87  Ky.  586:  557. 
v.  Duff,  7  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  370:  749. 
v.  Edwards,  <\  Gray,  1:  67a 
v.  Equitable  Life  Ins.  Soc,  100 

Ky.  341:  645,  986. 
v.  Erie,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St. 

339:  1022. 
v.  Farley,  19  Phila.  561:  306. 


Commonwealth  v.  Farmers'  Bank, 
97  Ky.  590:  1194. 
v.  Fisher,  17  Mass.  46:  9«9,  962. 
v.  Fowler,  18  Phila.  573:  458. 
v.  Frantz,  135  Pa.  St.  389:  257. 
v.  Gaines,  2  Va.  Cas.  172:  649, 

928. 
v.  Gardner,  11  Gray,  438:  481, 

482,  485. 
v.  Getchell,  16  Pick.  452:  556. 
v.  Gilligan,  195  Pa.  St.  504:  232, 

410. 
v.  Giltinan,  64  Pa.  St.  100:  755, 

968. 
v.  Godshaw,  92  Ky.  435:  301, 

464. 
v.  Gouger,  21  Pa.  Supr.  Ct  217: 

965. 
v.  Grand  Cent  B.  &  L.  Ass'n, 

97  Ky.  325:  782. 
v.  Graves,  155  Mass.  163:  1185. 
v.  Green,  17  Mass.  515:  25. 
v.  Green,  58  Pa.  St.  226:  204, 

207,  284. 
v.  Grier,  152  Pa.  St  176:  539. 
v.  Griffin,   105  Mass.  185:  756, 

850. 
v.  Grinstead,  108  Ky.  59;  523. 
v.  Guthrie,  203  Pa.  St.  209:  410. 
v.  Hall,  97  Mass.  570: 1182, 1185, 

1227. 
v.  Hall,  128  Mass.  410:  716. 1297. 
v.  Hanley.  15  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  271: 

303,  383,  390. 
v.  Hardin  Co.,  99  Ky.  188:  66. 
v.  Harris,  13  Allen,  534:  797. 
v.  Hartnett,  3  Gray,  450:  930. 
v.  Hazen,  207  Pa.  St.  52:  265. 
v.  Hazen,  20  Pa.  Supr.  Ct  487: 

265. 
v.  Hewitt,  2  H.  &  M.  181:  1159. 
v.  Hitchens,  200  Pa.  St.  508:  410. 
v.  Hitchings,  5  Gray,  482:  577, 
595,  927. 


Ixiv 


TABLE   OF   CASKS   CITED. 


Tin-  raferanoea  nro  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Commonwealth  v.  Holliday,  08  Ky. 
618:  884  914. 
v.  Holstead,  l  Pa  Co.  Ct.  885: 

447. 
v.  Homer,  158  Muss.  343:  1180. 
v.  Howell,  195  Pa.  St.  519:  232, 

410. 
v.  Hudson.  11  Gray,  64:  1052. 
v.  Huffman,  0  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  211 : 

470. 
v.  Humphries,  7  Mass.  242:  634. 
v.  Huutley,  150  Mass.  236:  514. 
v.  111.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  194  Ky. 

866:  572. 
v.  Intoxicating     Liquors,     108 

Mass.  19:  732. 
v.  Johnson,  42  Pa.  St.  448:  19. 
v.  Jones,  4   Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  362: 

230,  418. 
v.  Junker,  7  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  125: 

141. 
v.  Keller,  177  Mass.  221:   633, 

689,  690. 
v.  Kelliher,  12  Allen,  480:  4S3, 

517. 
v.  Keniston,  5  Pick.  420:  645, 

902,  970. 
v.  Kenneson,  143  Mass.  418:  436. 
v.  Keystone  Ben.  Ass'n,  171  Pa. 

St.  465:  303. 
v.  Kimball,  21  Pick.  373:  481, 

558 
v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  3G6:  929, 

971. 
v.  Knapp,  9  Pick.  496:  472,  862. 
v.  Knowlton,  2  Mass.  534:  28, 

29,31,  GO'.).  010. 
v.  Leach,  1  Mass.  60:  28. 
v.  Leech,  24  Pa.  St.  r,r):  563. 
v.  Leech,  44  Pa.  St.  332:  1029. 
v.  Lloyd,  178  Pa.  St  308:  303, 

470,  569. 
v.  Lloyd,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  6:  303, 
569. 


Commonwealth  v.   Lockwood,  109 
Mass.  322:  888. 
v.  Logan,  12  Gray,  130:  643. 
v.  Loring,  8  Pick.  370:  664,  966, 

981. 
v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  20 

Ky.  L  Rep.  491:  143. 
v.  Lyter,  162  Pa.  St.  50:  423. 
v.  Macferron,  152  Pa.  St.  244: 

385,  530. 
v.  Mann,  168  Pa,  St.  290:  491, 

890. 
v.   Marshall,    69    Pa.   St.   332: 

796. 
v.  Marshall,  11  Pick.  350:  481, 

553,  554,  556,  678. 
v.  Martin,    17  Mass.   359:   645, 

853,  970,  984. 
v.  Martin,  107  Pa.  St.  185:  59, 

201,  214,  251,  256. 
v.  Mason,  82  Ky.  256:  517,  520, 

521. 
v.  McCarthy,  18  Phila.  646:  404, 

406. 
v.  McConnell,  25  Ky.  L.  R.  52: 

301. 
v.  McDonald,  25  Wash.  122 :  231. 
v.  McDonnell,  3  Pa.   Dist.  Ct 

767:  530. 
v.  McDonough,  13  Allen,  581: 

481,  556,  1187. 
v.  McKenney,  14  Gray,  1:  485. 
v.  McWilliams,  11  Pa.  St.  61: 

145. 
v.  Meeser,  44  Pa.  St.  341:  1029. 
v.  Middletovvn,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

639:  530. 
v.  Miller,  5  Dana,  320:  893,  899. 
v.  Mintz,  19  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  283: 

30:},  ^83,  390. 
v.  Moir,    199  Pa.  St.   534:  136, 
137,  139,  223,  384,  388,  579. 
v.  Monongahela    Nav.    Co.,   66 
Pa.  St.  81:  807. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Commonwealth  v.  Montross,  8  Pa. 

Supr.  Ct.  237:  257. 
v.  Moore,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  162: 

231. 
Moorhead,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  513: 

253. 
v.  Morgan,  178  Pa.  St.  198:  303. 
v.  Morningstar,  144  Pa.  St  103: 

303. 
v.  Mott,  21  Pick.  492:  556. 
v.  Muier,  ISO  Pa.  St.  47:  303. 
v.  Munson,  127  Mass.  459:  912. 
v.  Newcomb,  109  Ky.   18:  547, 

1221. 
v.  Norton,  16  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  423: 

426. 
v.  Paine,  207  Pa.  St.  45:  890. 
v.  Painter,  1  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  393: 

1117,  1122. 
v.  Painter,  10  Pa.  St.  214:  171. 
v.  Parker,  2  Pick.  550:  886. 
v.  Pattee,  12  Cush.  501:  554. 
v.  Patten,  88  Pa.  St.  258:  397, 

398,  401,  402,  403. 
v.  Peckham,  2  Gray,  514:  876. 
v.  Pegram,  1  Leigh,  569:  484. 
v.  Perryman,  2  Leigh,  717:  983. 
v.  Petranich,  183  Mass.  217:  597. 
v.  Phillips,  11  Pick.  28:  1181. 
v.  Planted,  148  Mass.  375:  150. 
v.  Pointer,  5  Bush,  301:  679. 
v.  Pulaski  Co.,  92  Ky.  197:  468. 
v.  Railroad  Companies,  95  Ky. 

60:  510,  543,  892. 
v.  Railway  Co.,  162  Pa.  St.  614: 

303,  464. 
v.  Rainey,  4  W.  &  S.  186:  778. 
v.  Reiter,  78  Pa.  St.  161:  932. 
v.  Reynolds,  89  Ky.  L.  R.  147: 

718. 
v.  Reynolds,    137  Pa.    St.    389: 

360,  361,  385. 
v.  Roberts,  155  Mass.  281:  749, 

776. 


Commonwealth   v.  Rothschild,  11 

Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  683:  764. 
v.  Roxbury,  9  Gray,  451:  1021, 

1039,  1046. 
v.  Samuels,   163    Pa.  St.    283: 

278. 
v.  Schneipp,   166  Pa.    St.   401: 

464. 
v.  Selby,  87  Ky.  594:  557. 
v.  Sellers,  130  Pa.  St.  32:  303, 

430. 
v.  Severn,  164  Pa.  St.  462:    186, 

278. 
v.  Shelton,  99  Ky.  120:  66. 
v.  Sherman,  85  Ky.  686:  555. 
v.  Shires,  195  Pa.  St.  515:  232, 

410. 
v.  Shopp,  1  Woodw.  Dec.  123: 

688,  689. 
v.  Slack,  19  Pick.  304:  664. 
v.  Slifer,  53  Pa.  St.  71:  648,  650, 

651. 
v.  Snelling,  4  Binn.  379:  962. 
v.  Snowden,  1  Brewst.  218:  869. 
v.  Springfield,  7  Mass.  12:  624. 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  101  Pa.  St. 

119:  551,  683. 
v.  Stevens,  10  Pick.  247:  1044. 
v.  Sullivan,  150  Mass.  315:  557. 
v.  Summerville,  204  Pa.  St.  300: 

534,  672. 
v.  Sylvester,  13  Allen,  247:  1019. 
v.  Taylor,  101  Ky.  325:  428. 
v.  Taylor,  159  Pa.  St.  451:  500, 

525. 
v.  Tewksbury,ll  Met.  55:  1014. 
v.  Turner,  1  Cush.  493:  1033. 
v.  Vetterlein,  21  Pa,  Supr.  Ct. 

587:  470. 
v.  "Warwick,  4  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  601: 

1065. 
v.  Warwick,  172  Pa.  St.  140:  6, 

9,  684,  1065. 
v.  Watts,  84  Ky.  537:  460,  517. 


Ixvi 


i  Ar.i.i    oi     OASES   01  rED. 


•es  are  to  Che  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-608;  Vol  n.  pp.  806-1815. 


mon  wealth  v.  Weir,  15  Pa.  Co. 

Ct 
v.  Weir,  166  Pa  St  384:   164 
v.  Welch,  2  Dana,  880:  56 

191ft 
v.  Weiler,  14  Bush.  218:  171. 
v.  Wilkinson,  139  Ta.  St.  298: 

1297. 
v.  Woolbert,  G  Binn.  292:  1134. 
v.  Worcester,  8  Pick  473:  62G. 
v.  Wunch,  167  Pa,  St  186:  538. 
v.  Wyatt  8  Eland.  G94;  484. 
v.  Wyman,  12  Cush.  237:  485. 
v.  Wyman,  137  Pa.  St  508:303. 
Company  of  Cutlers  v.  Ruslin, 
Skinner.  3G3:  556. 

pton  v.  Pierson,  28  N.  J.  Eq. 
j»G:,  1294, 
Corastock  v.  Bechtel,  63  Wis.  656: 
1098,  1259. 
v.  Jb  Mich.  195:  432. 

v.  Tracy,  4G  Fed.  162:  70. 
Comstock  Mill  &  Min.  Co.  v.  Allen, 

21  Nev.  325:  176. 
Condon  v.  Maloney.  108  Tenu.  82: 

HK),  404,  405,  406,  424 
Cone  t.  Bowles,  1  Salk.  205:  1306. 
v.  Nimocks,  78  Minn.  249:  703. 
Conery  v.  New  Orleans  W.  W.  Co. 

41  La.  Ann.  910:  301. 
Congdon  v.  Butte  Consol.  Ry.  Co., 
17  Mont.  481:  499. 
v.  Cook,  55  Minn.  1:  918. 
jer  v.  Barker,  11  OhioSt.  1:  778. 
v.  Weaver,  G  Cal.  548:  871. 
y  v.  Bart,  14  N.  Y.  22:  1210. 
Conklin   v.    Hutchinson,   65   Kan. 

595. 
Conkling  v.  Parker,  10  Ohio  St.  28: 

1056. 
Conley  v.  Columbus,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 
44  Tex.  579:  G27. 
v.  Commonwealth,  9^  Ky.  125: 
185,  191,  511. 


Conley  v.  Sims,  71  (ia.  161:  939. 
v.  State,  85  Ga  848:  852. 
v. 'Supervisors,  2  W.  Ya.  416: 
529. 
Conlin  v.  Supervisors,  99  Cal.  17: 
130. 
v.    Supervisors,    114   Cal.   404: 
428. 
Conn  v.  Board  of  Coni'rs,  151  Ind. 

517:  730,  846,  848. 
Connecticutt,   etc.   Ins.  Co.  v.  Al- 
bert, 39  Mo.  181:  G51. 
Connecticut   Mut.   L.   Ins.    Co.    v. 

Wood,  115  Mich.  444:  891. 
Connecting  Ry.  Co.   v.  Union  Ry. 

Co.,  108  111.  265:  1013. 
Connell  v.  Lewis.  Walk.  (Miss.)  251, 
1049. 
v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  108 
Mo.  459:  81,  952.  005. 
Conner,  Ex  parte,  51  Ga.  571 :  2G1. 
Conner  v.  Mayor,  etc.  5  N.  Y.  285: 
205.  345. 
v.  Paris,  87  Tex.  32:  1012. 
Connolly  v.  People,  42  111.  App.  36: 
1277. 
v.  Union  Sewer  Pipe  Co.,  184 
U.  S.  540:  426,577,580,597, 
599. 
Connor,  Ex  parte,  51  Ga.  571:  245. 
Connor  v.  Green  Pond,  etc.  R.  R 

Co.,  23  S.  C.  427:  258. 
Connors  v.  Carp  Riv.  Iron.  Co.,  54 
Mich.  1G8:  462,  511. 
v.  Grey,  32  Wis.  518:  1053. 
Conolly  v.  Riley,  25  Md.  402:  611. 
Conover  v.  Wright,  G  N.  J.  Eq.  613: 

I  lonqueror,  The,  1GG  U.  S.  110:  857. 

Conrad  v.  Crowdson,   75  111.  App. 

614:  693,724844,1076,  1241. 

v.  De  Montcourt,  138  Mo.  311: 

81. 
v.  Nell,  24  Mich.  275:  444. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Conrad  v.  Smith,  6  N.  D.  337:  1262. 
Consequa  v.  Willings,  1  Pet.  C.  C. 

225:  618,868. 
Conservators    of    Riv.   Thames  v. 

Hall,  L.  R.3  C.  P.  415:  529. 
Consolidated  Coal  Co.  v.  Gruber,  91 

111.  App.  15:  846. 
Consolidated,  etc.  Co.  v.  Cashow,  41 

Md.  59;  620,  622. 
Consolidation  of  School  Districts, 

In  re,  23  Colo.  499:  276,  427. 
Constantine  v.  Constantino,  6  Ves. 
100:  461 
v.  Van  Winkle,  6  Hill,  177:  636, 
654,  1038,  1230,  1231. 
Constitution  Pub.  Co.  v.  Do  Laugh- 
ter, 95  Ga.  17:  778,  857. 
Consumers'  Gas  Trust  Co.  v.  Har- 

less,  131  Ind.  446:  353,  356. 
Continental  Imp.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  47 

Mich.  299:  257,  889. 
Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Riggen,  31 

Ore.  336:  518. 
Converse  v.  Burrows,  2  Minn.  229: 
644,  1305. 
v.  United  States,  21  How.  463: 
710,  844. 
Conwell  v.  Hagerstown  Canal  Co., 

2  Ind.  588:  638,  917. 
Cook  v.  Clark,  10  Bing.  21:  1242. 
v.  Cockins,  117  Cal.  140:  1160, 

1164. 
v.  Commissioners,   6    McLean, 

112:  927. 
v.  Fisher.  100  Iowa,  27:  1290. 
v.  Gray,  6  Ind.  335:  330. 
v.  Marshall  Co.,  119  Iowa,  384; 

191,  198,  296. 
v.  Meyer,  73  Ala.  580:  465, 1062, 

1294. 
-v.  Moffat,  5  How.  295:  631. 
v.  Moore,  95  N.  C.  1:  327. 
v.  Mutual  Ins.  Co.,  53  Ala.  37: 
640. 


Cook  v.  Oliver,  1  Woods,  437:  37. 
v.  Port  of  Portland,  20  Ore.  580: 

134. 
v.  Sexton,  79  N.  C.  305:  642. 
v.  State,  110  Ala.  40:  689. 
v.  Stata,  26  Ind.  App.  278:  126, 

141. 
v.  State,  90  Tenn.  407:  386,  388. 
v.  Tower,  1  Taunt.  372:  1149. 
v.  United  States,  138  U.  S.  157: 

1181. 
v.  Winchester,   80    Mich.    581: 
1314. 
Cook  Co.  v.  Chicago,  167  111.  109: 
463. 
v.  Gilbert,  146  111.  268:  465,  467, 
527. 
Cook  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  United 

States,  107  U.  S.  445:  516,  519. 
Cooley  v.  Granville,  10  Cush.  56: 

1033. 
Coolidge  v.  Pierce  Co.,  28  Wash.  95: 
1230,  1232. 
v.  Williams,  4  Mass.  140:  1013, 
1055. 
Coomber  v.  Berks,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  Div. 

33:  649. 
Coombs  Commission  Co.  v.  Block, 

130  Mo.  668:  404,  406. 
Cooper,  Matter  of,   15  John.   532: 
1305. 
v.  Curtis,  30  Me.  488:  312,  313. 
v.  Holmes,  71  Md.  20:  527. 
v.  Reaney,  5  Minn.  528;  611. 
v.  Springer,  65  N.  J.  L.  594:  302, 

585. 
v.  Wait,  106  Ky.  628:  535. 
v.  Yoakum,  91  Tex.  391:   759, 
781. 
Co-Operative  S.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Fa- 
wick,  11  S.  D.  589:  466,  468,  492, 
511,  525. 
Cooperrider  v.  State,  46  Neb.  84: 186, 
225,  448. 


lzviii 


TAB]  i     01     0A81  -   ^  li  IP. 


Tho  n-fiTtMu-os  nn<  (o  the  pu^es:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  II,  pp,  605-1315. 


v.  Barclay,  30  Ala. 
ISO:  18,  1817,  1880,  1887. 

>w  Mining  Co,  v.  South  Caro- 
lina. Ill  r.  B,  550:   1021, 

n.  Cope,  L87  l".  S.  688:  48,187, 
466,  569,  1059,  1000. 
v.  Doherty,  2  De  G.  &  J.  614: 

668,  70ft 
v.  Rowlands,  2  M.  &  W.  140: 

v.  Thames  Haven,  etc.  Co.,  3 
Ex  841:  1140. 
Copeland,  Ex  parte,  2  De  G.  M.  &  G. 

914: 
Copeland  v.  Pirie,  20  Wash.  481 :  432. 
leridan,  152  Ind.  107:  437. 
v.  St.  Joseph,  126  Mo.  417:  155, 

875,  390,  596 
•man    v.    Gallant,  1    P.    Wins. 
314:  655. 
Copland  v.  Davies,  L  R  511.  L  Cas. 
654,  657. 
v.  Pirie,  '20  Wash.  481:  450. 
v.  Powell,  1  Bing.  3G9:  830. 
ley  v.  Sanford,  2  La.  Ann.  335: 

•t  v.  Bradley.  7  Nev.  10G:  1119, 
1123. 

■  tt  v.  Nutt,  10  Wall.  401:  1090. 
Cordell  v.  State.  22  In  1.  1:  143,  500. 
Core  v.  James,  L.  R  7  Q.  B.  135:  979, 

.  Corliss,  8  Vt.  373:  1124. 
elius  v.  Uultuian,  44  Neb.  441: 

tell  v.  Conine- Eaton   L,  Co.,  9 
Colo.  App     S5:  770 
oyne,  192  U.  S.  418:  649. 
v.  Moulton,  3  Denio,  12:  327. 

•  _-  v.  Greene,  23  Barb.  33:  170. 

v.  McCullough,  1  N.  Y  47:  1198. 

wall  v.Todd,  38  Conn.  143: 1000. 

ju  v.  Scott,  1  Caines,  544: 


Corporation    Commission    v.   Sea- 
board Air  Line  System,  127  N.  C. 
283:  634. 
Corscadden  v.  Haswell,  88  App.  Div. 

15S:  239. 
Cortesy  v.  Territory,  7  N.  M.  89: 

779. 
Cortis  v.  Kent  Water  Works  Co.,  7 

B.  &  C.  314:  666,  1097. 
Corwin    v.   Merritt,   3    Barb.   341: 

1059,  1137. 
Cory  v.  Carter,  48  Ind.  327:  342. 
Cosh-Murray    Co.    v.    Futtich,    10 

Wash.  449:  492,  523. 
Costa  Rica  v.  Erlanger,  L  R  3  Ch. 

Div.  69:  1225. 
Costello  v.  Palmer,   20  App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)210:  461. 
v.  Wyoming,  49  Ohio  St.  202: 
354,  396. 
Cota  v.  Ross,  66  Me.  161:  930. 
Cotting  v.  K.  C.  Stock  Yards  Co., 

82  Fed.  839:  89. 
Cotton  v.  Brien,  6  Rob.  (La.)  115: 
683. 
v.  James,   Mood.   &   Mai.   278: 

809. 
v.  Leon  Co.,  6  Fla.  610:  170. 
v.  State,  62  Ark.  585:  532. 
Cotton  Planter,  Ship,  1  Paine,  23: 

310. 
Cottrell  v.  State,  9  Neb.  128:  97. 
Couch    v.    Jeffries,   4    Burr.   2460: 
1170. 
v.  McKee,  6  Ark.  484:  1158. 
Council   Bluffs  v.    Waterman,    86 

Iowa.  688:  501. 
Countess  of  Rothes   v.  Kirkcaldy 
W.  W„  L.  R.  7  App.  Cas.  702:  699, 
816,  917,  918,  923. 
County  Board  v.  Short,  77  111.  App. 

448:  706. 
County  Com'rs  v.  Aspen  Min.  &  C. 
Co.,  3  Colo.   App.  223:  207,  236. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


County  Coin's  v.  Commissioners,  51 
Md.  465:  345. 
v.  Franklin  R   R.   Co.,  34  Md. 

163:  185. 
v.  Hellen,  72  Md.  603:  199,  288. 
v.  Jacksonville,  36  Fla.  196:  133, 

199,  281. 
v.  Meekins,  50  Md.  39:  185. 
County   Ct.   v.   Schwarz,  13  Colo. 

291:  731,775. 
County  Line  Case,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

712:  777. 
County  Seat  Linn  Co.,  15  Kan.  500: 

758. 
Course  v.  Stead,  4  DalL  22:  613: 

866. 
Courtauld  v.  Legh,  L,  R.  4  Ex.  126: 

758. 
Court  of  Insolvency  v.  Melden,  69 

Vt.  510:  788. 
Coutieri  v.  Mayor,  44  N.  J.  L  58: 
201. 
v.  New  Brunswick,  44  N,  J.  K 
58:  202,  208,  211,  377. 
Cove  v.   Nimocks,   78    Minn.   249: 

699. 
Covert  v.  Munson,  93  Mich.  603: 

1139. 
Covington  v.  East  St.  Louis,  78  111. 
548:  527. 
v.  Frank,  77  Miss.  606:  675,677. 
v.  Kentucky,  173  U.  S.  231:  40, 

614,  1195. 
v.  McNickle,  18B.  Mon.262:  654, 

666,  72 2,  1102. 
v.  State,  28  Tex.  Ct.  App.  225: 

973. 
v.  Voskotter,  80  Ky.  219:  265, 
345,  624. 
Covington    Drawbridge    v.   Shep- 
herd, 20  How.  227:  613,  626,  866. 
Cowan  v.  East  Tenn.  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
2  Tenn.  Cas.  102:  141. 
v.  Jones,  79  Mo.  App.  222:  1306. 


Cowan  v.  Prowse,  93  Ky.  156:  92a 
Cowert,  Ex  parte,  92  Ala.  94:  114, 

236,  452,  582. 
Cowley  v.  Rushville,  60  Ind.  327: 

435. 
Cox  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R.  R.  Co, 
174  Mo.  588:  248. 
v.    Kyle,  75    Miss.   667:    1058, 

1060. 
v.  Miller,  54  Tex.  16:  1296. 
v.  N.  W.  Lumber  Co.,  82  Wis. 

141:  524. 
v.  Robinson,  2  Stew.  &  P.  96: 

619. 

v.  State,  8  Tex.  App.  254:  632. 

v.  Truitt,  57  N.  J.  L.  635:  427. 

Coxe  v.  Robbins,  4  Halst.  384:  636 

v.  State,  144  N.  Y.396:  304,  427. 

Coxe's  Ex'r  v.  Martin,  44  Pa,  St.  322: 

1207. 
Coxson  v.  Doland,  2  Daly,  66:  759, 

778,  795,  813. 
Coy  v.  Coy,  15  Minn.  119:  914. 
Crabb  v.  State,  88  Ga.  584:  201,292, 

341. 
Crafford  v.  Supervisors,  87  Va  110: 

770. 
Crafts  v.  Clark,  38  Iowa,  236,  61L 

v.  Ray,  22  R.  I.  179:  137. 
Cragin  v.  Lamkin,  7  Allen,  395:  620, 

622. 
Craig  v.  Dunn,  47  Minn.  59;  1222. 
v.  First  Presb.  Ch.  88  Pa.  St 

42:  232. 
v.  Herzman,  9N.  D.  140:  1257. 
v.  Medical  Examiners,  12  MonL 
203:  427. 
Crake  v.  Crake,  18  Ind.  156,  611. 

v.  Powell,  2  E.  &  B.  210:  1148. 

Cram  v.   Cram,  116  N.  C.  288:  691 

Crane  v.  Ailing,  2  Green  (N.  J.),  593: 

1251. 

v.  Circuit  Judge,  111  Mich.  496: 

469. 


1\\  LBLE  OF  CASKS  CITED. 

ire  to  the  pa  <•-:  V6L  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol.  II,  pp  608  1815. 


Crene  v.  Hardy,  l  Mich.  56:  611. 
\.   McGinnis,   1  GilL  &  J.  468: 

ia 

\.    Reeder.  22  Mioh.  823:  527, 
581,  861. 
Cranor  v.  School  District,  151  Mo. 

119:  1161,  1288,  1284,  1286 
Crary  v.  Port   Arthur  C.  &  D.  Co., 
i  5:  781,  7::::.  765,  885. 
ens  v.  Adair  Co.  Ct.,  16  Ky.  L. 
R.  71:  527. 
Crawford  v.  Ross,  12G  Mich.  G34: 
190, 
v.  Spooner,  G  Moore's  P.  C.  9: 

1169. 
v.  Tyson.  46  Ala.  009:  845. 
Crawford  Co.  v.  Hathaway, 66  Neb. 
754:  595. 
v.  Hathaway,  61  Neb.  317:  595. 
Crawfordsville,     etc.    T.     Co.     v. 
Fletcher,    104    Ind.   97:    22,   710, 

Crawhill's  Trust,   In  re,  8  De  G. 

Macn.  &  G.  486:  761. 
Creighton,  In  re,  12  Neb.  2S0:  1052. 
Creighton  v.  Pragg,  21  CaL  115:  547. 
Cresoe  v.  Laidley,  2  Binn.  279:  1112. 
Crespigny  v.  Wittenoom,  4  T.  R. 

790:  049,  654,  730. 
Cressey  v.  Parks,  75  Me.  387:  331, 
336. 
v.  Tatora,  9  Ore.  542:  610. 
Creston  W.  W.  Co.  v.  McGrath,  89 

Iowa,  502:  1040. 
Creswell  v.  Green,  14  East.  537:  335, 

Crigler  v.  Alexander,  33  Gratt,  674: 
1162. 
ian  v.  Johnson,  23  Colo.  2G1: 
1137. 

v   Banbury,  8  Biug.  394:551, 

Crispin  v.  Doglioni,  3  S.  &  T.  9G: 


Cri  swell  v.  Mont  Cent  Ry.  Co.,  17 

Mont  189:  711.  798. 
Crittenden  v.  Wilson,  2  Cow.   165: 

627,  686 

Crocker   v.   Crane,  21   Wend.  211: 
693,  729. 
v.  Iluntzicker,   113    Wis.    181: 
557. 
Croly  v.  Sacramento,  119  Cal.  229: 

10. 
Cromelien  v.  Brink,  29  Pa.  St.  522: 

328,  332. 
Cromwell  v.  McLean,  123  N.  Y.  474: 

1286. 
Crone  v.  State,  49  Ind.  538:  660. 
Crookall  v.  Matthews,  61  N.  J.  L. 

349:  395,  539. 
Crooke  v.  Brookling,  2  Vern.  107: 

761. 
Crookston    v.   County  Com'rs,   79 

Minn.  283:  194,  203,  267. 
Croomer  v.    State,  40   Tex.  Crim. 

A  pp.  672:  G94,  886. 
Crosby  v.  Bennett,  7  Met.  17:  917. 
v.  Brown,  60  Barb.  548:  999. 
v.  Hawthorn,  25  Ala.  221:  9G3, 

982. 
v.  Huston,  1  Tex.  237:  1105. 
v.  Patch,  18  Cal.  438:  568,  922. 
Crosier   v.  Tomlinson,  2  Mod.  71: 

1278,  1282. 
Cross    v.  Harrison,   16  How.  19G: 
310. 
v.   McMacken,   17    Mich.    511: 

1049. 
v.  Pinckneyville  Mill  -Co.,    17 
111.  54:  1140. 
Crossman  v.  Crossman,  33  Ala.  486: 
1226. 
v.  Kincaid,  31    Ore.  445:  1313. 
well    v.    Crane,   7  Barb.  191: 
778. 
Crovatt  v.  Mason,  101  Ga.  24G:  385, 
383. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxxt 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Croven  v.  Atlantic,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

150  N.  Y.  225:  309. 
Crowder  v.  Stewart,  L   R   16  Ch. 
Div.  370:  654. 
v.  Sullivan,  128  Ind.  48G:  1024. 
Crow  Dog,  Ex  parte,  109  U.  S.  556: 

463,  529,  530,  545. 
Crowther  v.  Fidelity  Ins.  T.  &  S. 
D.  Co.,  85  Fed.  41:  234, 1190, 1208. 
Croxall  v.   Shererd,  5   Wall.  268: 

626,  1046. 
Crozer  v.  People,  206  111.  464:  731. 
Crozier  v.  Hodges,  3  La.  357:  611. 
Cruger  v.  Cruger,  5  Barb.  225:  747. 
v.  Dougherty,  43    N.    Y.   107: 
1009,  1142. 
Cucullu  v.  Louisiana    Ins.  Co.,   5 

Mart.  (U.  S.)  613:  618. 
Culbreth  v.  Downing,  121  N.  C.  205: 

1283,  1284,  1287. 
Cull  v.  Austin,  LR7C.  P.  234: 

747,  793. 
Cullen  v.  Glendora  Water  Co.,  113 

Cal.  503:  415,  582,  593. 
Cullerton  v.  Mead,  22  CaL  95:  644, 

1250. 
Culver  v.  People,  161   111.  89:  788, 
789,  790. 
v.  Third  Nat.  Bank,  64  111.  528: 

517. 
v.  Woodruff  Co.,  5  Dill.   392: 
1227. 
Cumberland  Co.  v.  Boyd,  113  Pa. 

St.  52:  882. 
Cumberland,  etc.  Canal  v.  Patch- 
ings, 57  Me.  146:  986. 
Cumberland    Tel.    &    Tel.   Co.    v. 
United  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  93  Tenn. 
492:  510. 
Cumming  v.  Fryer,  Dudley  (Ga.) 

182:  990,  1246. 
Cummings  v.  Akron  Cement  Co.,  6 
Blatch.  509:  689. 
v.  Chandler,  26  Me.  453:  553. 


Cummings  v.  Chicago,  144  III  563: 
385,  389. 
v.  Coleman,   7   Rich.   Eq.  509: 

753. 
v.  Everett,  82  Me.  260:  778, 846, 

848,  851,  857,  885. 
v.  Hayes,  100  111.  App.  347:  1035. 
v.  Hyatt,  54  Neb.  35:  765. 
v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  277:  1174, 

1178. 
v.  Montague,  11G  Ga.  457:  22, 
618. 
Cummins  v.  Garretson,  15  Ark.  135: 
1061. 
v.  State,  12  Tex.  App.  121:  23, 
619. 
Cundell  v.  Dawson,  4  C.  B.  376:  938. 
Cunningham   v.   Cunningham,   80 
Minn.  180:  1314. 
v.  Griffin,  107  Ga.  690:  300. 
v.  Hanney,   12    111.  App.    437: 

1062,  1294. 
v.  Mahan,  112  Mass.  58:  336. 
v.  State,  2  Speers,  246:  723. 
Curlewis  v.  Mornington,  7  El.  &  R 

283:  1278,  1279. 
Curran  v.  Owens,  15  W.  Va.  208: 
544. 
v.  Shattuck,  24  Cal.  427:  1040, 
1041. 
Currie  v.  So.  Pac.  Co.,  21  Ore.  566: 

72,  86,  87. 
Currier  v.  Marietta,  etc.  R,  R.  Co., 

11  Ohio  St.  228:  1021. 
Curtis  v.  Embery,  L.  R.  7  Ex.  369: 
778. 
v.  Gill,  34  Conn.  49:  479,  638. 
v.  Leavitt,  17  Barb.  309:  919. 
v.  Leavitt,  15  N.  Y.  1:  471,  545, 

577. 
v.March,  4  Jur.  (N.  S.)  1112: 

876. 
v.  Martin,  3  How.  106:  754. 
v.  McCullough,  3  Nev.  202:  924 


lxxii 


1  A  1,1  i:    (.)!•'    CASKS    CITED. 


The  reterancM  ;ir(>  to  the  |  ng«e:  Vol  I.  pp.  I  BOB;  Vol,  II,  pp.  005-1:315. 


Curtis  v.  Renneker,  84  S.  C.  468: 

ilea 

v.  Stovin,  L.  R.  82  Q.  B.  D.  513: 
914,  I 
Curtwright   v.  Crow,  44  Mo.  App. 

•  B47. 
Cashing  v.  Worrick,  9  Gray,  382: 

3  811. 
Cusic  v.  Douglas,  3  Kan.  123:  1200. 
Castor  v.  Yellowstone  Co.,  6  Mod. 

39:  931. 
Custin  v.  Viroqua,67  Wis.  314:  430, 

441.  710.  797. 
Cutcher  v.  Crawford,  105  Ga.  180: 

81,  128,  129. 
Cutler  v.  Russellville,  40  Ark.  105: 
1139. 
v.  Supervisors,    5G    Miss.    115: 
1231. 
Cutlip  v.  Sheriff,  3  W.  Va.  588:  225. 
Cutter  v.  Caruthers,  48  Cal.  178: 

880. 
Cutting  v.  Kansas  City  Stock  Yards 
Co.,  82  Fed.  839:  215. 
v.  Taylor,  3  S.  D.  11:  1161. 
Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38  Ga.  350:  18,  927, 
1200,  1210. 

D. 

Dabney  v.  Dabney,  20  App.   Cas. 

(D.  C.)  440:  1154,  1223. 
Daggett  v.  State,  4  Conn.  60:  819. 
Daggs  v.  Orient  Ins.  Co.,  13G  Mo. 

382:  429,  122G. 
Dahlv.  Tibbals,  5  Wash.  259:  464 
Dahnke    v.     People,    168  111.    102: 

515,  582,  745,  955. 
Dailey  v.  Pelter  Co.,  203  Pa.  St.  593: 

Daines  v.  Heath,  3  C.  B.   941:  999. 
Dakins  v.   Wagner,   3  Dow.  P.    C. 

535: 
Dttlby  v.  Wolf,  14  Iowa,  228:   172. 


Dale  \.  Atchison,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  57 

Kan.  601:   21,  988. 

v.  Irwin,  78  111.  170:  1143. 

Daley  v.  State,  40  Tex.  dim.  App. 

101:  7G5. 
Dallas  v.   Dallas  Consol.   Elec.  St. 

I.y.  Co.,  95  Tex.  268:  1150. 
DWllex  v.  Jones,  2  Jur.  (U.  S.)  U79: 

937,  938. 
Dalrymple  v.  Dalrymple,  2  Hogg. 

Consist.  R.  81:  619. 
Dalton,  In  re,  61  Kan.  257:  417. 
Dalton  v.  Murphy,  30  Miss.  59:  1136. 
Daly  v.  Jones,  8  Wheat.  535:  495, 
GIG. 
v.  State,  13  Lea,  228:  313,  357. 
Dame's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St  417:  793. 
Dane  v.    Mc Arthur,   57    Ala.  454: 

71,  94. 
Dane  County  v.  Reindahl,  104  Wis. 

302:  519,-520,  880. 
Dan  forth  v.  Groton  Water  Co.,  178 
Mass.  472:  1168,  1218,  1289. 
v.  Smith,  23  Vt  247:  549. 
v.    Woodward,    10    Pick.    423: 
1099,  1259. 
Daniel  v.  Day,  51  Ala,  431:  1280. 

v.  State,  114  Ga,  533:  176,  306. 
Daniels  v.  Clegg,  28  Mich.  32:  784. 
v.  Moses,  12  S.  C.  130:  1219.    - 
v.  Racine,  98  Wis.  649:  1225. 
v.  State,  150  Ind.  348:  950. 
Danks  v.   Quackenbush,  3  Denio, 
594:  1200. 
v.  Quackenbush,  1N.Y.  79:  641, 
645. 
Dano  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Ark.  564:  722. 
Dan  vers  v.   Boston,   10  Pick.   513: 

1014. 
Danville  v.  Danville  W.  W.  Co.,  180 
111.  235:  300. 
v.  Fiscal  Ct.,  21  Ky.  L.  R.  196: 

707,  846. 
v.  Hatcher,  101  Va.  523:  579. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  rages:  "Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03:  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  1:  1218. 
Danville  State  Hospital  v.  Belle- 
forte,  163  Pa.  St.  175:  1311. 
Darby  v.  Heagerty,  2  Idaho,  282: 
1059. 
v.  Wilmington,  76  N.   C.    133: 
592. 
D'Arcy  v.  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  108 

Tenn.  567:  549. 
Darcy  v.  Ruff  el,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  75: 
711. 
v.  San  Jose,  104  Cal.  642:  371. 
Darling,  Ex  parte,  16Nev.  98:  19. 
Darling  v.  Boesch,  67   Iowa,   702: 
108. 
v.  Rodgers,  7  Kan.  592:  422. 
Darmstaetter  v.  Maloney,  45  Mich. 

621:788,1048. 
Darrah  v.  McKim,  2  Hun,  337:  577. 
Darrow  v.  People,  8  Colo.  417:  368. 
Dart  v.  Bagley,  110  Mo.  42:649,651. 
Dartmouth   College  v.  Woodward, 
4  Wheat.  518:  1035,  1192,  1193. 
;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  John.  477: 
3,  19,   635,   640,   683,    1070,    1159, 
1162,  1-217. 
Dashiell  v.  Baltimore,  45  Md.  615: 

551,561. 
'  Dastervigues  v.  United  States,  118 
Fed.  119:  151. 
v.  United  States,  122  Fed.  30: 
157. 
Daubman  v.  Smith,  47  N.  J.L.  200: 

203,  201,  205,  221,  246,  252. 
Daughdrill  v.  State,  113  Ala.  7:  299. 
Davenport  v.  Barnes,  2  N.  J.  L.  211; 
644,  1076. 
v.  Hannibal,  120  Mo.  150:  703, 

744,  1015. 
v.  Kleinschmidt,  6  Mont.  502: 
1023,  1029. 
.  v.  R  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa,  624:  312. 
Davey  v.  Burlington,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
31  Iowa,  553:  659. 


Davey  v.  Janesville,  111  Wis.  628: 
608. 
v.  Ruff  el,  3  Pa.  Dist,  Ct.75:914. 
v.  Ruff  el,  162  Pa.  St.  443:  239, 
847. 
David  v.  iEtua  Ins.  Co.,  9  Iowa,  45: 
94a 
v.  Levy,  119  Ala.  241:  499,  1149, 

1152. 
v.  Southwestern   R.  R.  Co.,  41 
Ga.  223:  1292. 
Davidson   v.  Allen,    36  Miss.    419: 
899,  905. 
v.  Carson,   1    Wash.  Ter.  307: 

844. 
v.  Clayland,  1  H.  &  J.  540:  649. 
v.  Hannon,  67  Conn.  312:  125a 
v.  Kuhn,  1  Disney,  405:  1131. 
v.  Moorman,  2  Heisk.  575:  111. 
v.  New  Orleans,   96  U.  S.  97: 

1217. 
v.  Sharpe,  6  Ired.  14:  621. 
v.  Von   Detten,  139   Cal.  467: 
191,  231. 
Davies,  Matter  of,  168  N.  Y.  89:  524. 
Da  vies  v.  Creighton,  33  Gratt.  696: 
466. 
v.  Harvey,  K  R.  9  Q.  B.  433: 

483. 
v.  Los  Angeles,  86  Cal.  37:  359. 
Davies-Henderson  L  Co.  v.  Gotts- 

chalk,  81  Cal.  641:  1170. 
Daviess  v.  Fairbairn,  3  How.  636: 

480,  516,  529,  638. 
Davis,  Ex  parte,  21  Fed.  396:  493. 
Davis,  In  re,  58  Kan.  368:  6,  10. 
Davis  v.  Bank  of  Fulton,  31  Ga.  69: 
262. 
v.  Bowling,  19  Mo.  651:  869. 
v.  Branch  Bank,  12   Ala,  463: 

1227. 
v.  Carew,  1  Rich.  275:  518. 
v.  Clark,  106  Pa.  St.  377:  401, 
402. 


1  \  \  i  V 


TABLE    0]     0A8E8  CI  fED. 


The  references  are  to  tin-  pages;  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  I 


Davis  v.  Commonwealth,  IT  Qratt 

017:   86a 

3  Q,  R  886:  716. 
v.  1  rNeb.  B59:   164 

v.  Delpit,    05    Miss.    415:    687, 

1066 
v.  Dougherty  Co.,  116  Ga.  491: 

815,  !     . 
v.  Dunlevy,  11  Colo.  App.  344: 

071. 
v.  Fames,  20  Tex.  296:  1046. 
v.  Gaines,  48  Ark.  ;J70:  1009. 
v.  (nay,    1(3    Wall.    203:    1192, 

119a 

v.  Hart,  123  Cal.  3S4:  702,  710, 

721. 
v.  H.  B.  Claflin  Co.,  63  Ark.  157: 

lsea 

v.  Humphrey,    22    Iowa,    137: 
1098,  1258. 
Jacquin,  5  TTarr.  &J.  100:  27. 
Land,  88  Ma  436:  1260. 
Lumpkin.  57  Miss.  506:  1169. 
Mason,  1  Pet  503:  616. 
Menasha,  21  Wis.  491:  19. 
v.  Minor,    1    How.    (Miss.)   183, 

517,  1211.  1217,  1218. 
v.  Post,  125  Cal.  210:  463. 
v.  Randall,  97  Me.  36:  70& 
v.  Rogers,  14  Ind.  424:  611. 
v.  Siegel,  Cooper  &  Co.,  80  111. 

App.  278:  1258. 
v.  Standish,  26  Hun,  608:  1265, 

1268,  1270. 
v.  State,  51  Neb.  301:  141,  185, 
189,  195,  211,  250,  252,  357, 
431,  58L 
v.  State  Bank,  7  Ind.  316:  1229, 

1231. 
v.  Van   Arsdale,   59  Miss.  367: 

1230,  123a 
v.  Watson,  89 Ma  App.  15:1294. 
v.Whidden,  117  CaL  618:  100, 
510. 


Davis  v.  Wood,  7  Ma  165:  117. 

v.  Woolnough,  9  Iowa,  101:  276, 
401.  429. 
Davis  Coal  Co.  v.  Polland,  158  Ind. 

607:   119. 
Davison  v.  Brown,  93  Wis.  85:  1222. 
v.  Farmer,   6  Exch.    242:    490, 

512. 
v.  Gill.  1  East,  64:  638. 
v.  Johonnot,  7  Met.  388:  627. 
Davock  v.   Moore,  105  Mich.  120: 

112. 
Davys  v.  Douglas,  4  H  &  N.  180: 

804. 
Daw  v.  Metropolitan  Board,  12  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  161:  474,638. 
Dawson  v.  Black,  148  111.  484:  1154. 
v.  Dawson,   23  Mo.  App.   169: 

748,  759. 
v.  Ho  van,  51  Barb.  459:  5ia 
v.  Matthews,  105  Ala.  485:  1305. 
v.  Peter,  119  Mich.  274:  1224. 
Dawson  Co.  v.  Clark,  58  Neb.  756: 

466,  52S,  847. 
Dawson's  Appeal,  15  Pa.  St.  480: 

1136. 
Day,  In  re,  1S1   111.  73:  671,  1158. 

1161. 
Day  v.  Madden,  9  Colo.  App.  464: 
1 202. 
v.  McGinnis,  1  Heisk.  310:  30S, 

313. 
v.  Morristown,  62  N.  J.  L.  571: 

761. 
v.  Munson,  14  Ohio  St.  488:  8991 
Dayton  v.  Mclntyre,  5  How.  Pr.  117: 

328. 
Dayton  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Barton, 

103Tenn.  604:  132.  137. 
Dean,  Ex  parte,  2  Cow.  605;  332. 
Dean  v.  Borchsenius,  30  Wis.  236: 
084,  887. 
v.  Charlton,  27  Wis.  522:   999, 
1001. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Dean  v.  King,  13  Ired.  L.  20:  312. 
v.  Metropolitan  El.  R  R  Co., 

119  N.  Y.  540:  1058. 
v.   Spartenburg   Co.,   59  S.    C. 

110:  343,  428. 
v.  State,  100  Ala.  102:  299. 
Dean  and  Chapter  of  York  v.  Mid- 
dle burgh,  2  Y.  &  J.    196:    1086, 

1263. 
Dean  v.  Willamette  Bridge  Co.,  22 

Ore.  167:  134. 
Dean  of  Ely  v.  Bliss,  2  De  G.  M.  & 

G.  471:  1066,  1067. 
Dean  of  York,  Matter  of,  2  Q.  B.  34: 

881. 
Dearborn   v.    Brookline,   97    Mass. 
466:  812. 
v.  Patton,  3  Ore.  420:  561. 
Dear  Bros.  v.  Marx,  63  Tex.  298: 

711. 
Dear  in  g  v.  York,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  31 

Me.  172:  927. 
Deatherage  v.  Rohrer,  78  111.  App. 

.248:  572,  703. 
Debardelaben  v.  State,  99  Tenn.  649: 

426. 
DeBegnis  v.  Arrnistead,  10  Bing. 

107:  938. 
Debenture  Corporation  v.  Warren, 

9  Wash.  312:  470. 
Debevoise  v.  N.  Y.  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  98 

N.  Y.  377:  23,  27. 
De  Both  v.  Rich  Hill  C.  &  M.  Co., 

141  Mo.  497:  200,  231. 
De  Bow  v.  People,  1  Denio,  9:  62, 

123,  605,  607,  866,  867. 
Debuam  v.  Chilty,  131  N.  C.  657:  84, 

85,  92,  93. 
De  Camp  v.  Eveland,  19  Barb.  81: 

608,  926. 
De  Celis  v.  United  States,  13  Ct.  CI. 

117:  884,  869. 
De  Chastellux  v.  Fairchild,  15  Pa. 

St.  18:  19,  1217,  1233. 
f 


Deck  v.  Gherke,  6  Cal.  666:  1054 
De  Cordova  v.  Galveston,  4  Tex. 

470:  641. 
Deddrick  v.  Wood,  15  Pa.  St,  9:  650, 

654. 
Deer  field  v.   Arms,   20  Pick.   480: 

1218. 
Deffebaok  v.  Hawke,  115  U.  S.  392: 

855. 
Deffendorf  v.  Deffendorf,  42  App. 

Div.  166:  1226. 
De  Giacomo,  In  re,  12  Blatchf.  391 : 

1181. 
De  Graff  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 

23  Minn.  144:  1192. 
De  Gravelle  v.  Iberia,  etc.  Dr.  Dist., 

104  La.  703:  491. 
De  Groff  v.  Went,  164  I1L  485:  444, 

673. 
De  Groot  v.  United  States,  5  Wall. 

419;  457. 
De  Hart  v.  Atlantic  City,  62  N.  J.  L. 
586:  174. 
v.   Atlantic  City,  63  N.  J.  L. 
223:  174,  362. 
De  Hay  v.  Berkley  Co.  Com'rs,  66 

S.  C.  227:  429. 
Deitch  v.  Staub,  115  Fed.  309:  671. 
Dejarnette  v.  Haynes,  23  Miss.  600: 

J  77. 
De  Kay  v.  Darrah,  14  N.  J.  L.  288: 

1282. 
De  Lancey  v.  Piepgras,  138  N.  Y. 

26:  1021. 
Delano  v.  Jopling,  1  Litt.  417:  606, 

868. 
Delaplane  v.  Crenshaw,  15  Gratt. 
451:  870,884. 
v.  Burson,  61  Pa.  St.  369:  1015. 
Delaware,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Markley, 

45  N.  J.  Eq.  139;  413. 
Delaware  &  H.  C.  Co.,  Matter  of,  60 

Hun,  204:  1232. 
[  Delk  v.  Zorn,  48  S.  C.  149:  668. 


!  \  \  \  i 


TAHI.K    OK    r  \SK.s    C'l  I  1.1'. 


Th>>  ratoraooM  in  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  i-C03;  Vol.  n.  pp.  005-1315. 


Delia  v.  Kennedy,  49  Wis.  555:  598. 

Delmae  v.   ins.  Ock,  li  Wall.  605: 

De  Lorme  v.  Pease,  L9G&  880:  947. 
Doming  v.  Poster,   48  N.   H.   105: 

v.  MoClaughry,  113  Fed.  61  9: 
892, 
Den  v.  Robinson,  5  N.  J.  L.  689: 

Dendy  v.  Gamble,  CI  Ga.  588:  109S. 
Denham  v.  Holeman.  20  Ga.  182: 

Den  man  v.  Broderick,  111   Cal.  96: 

::71. 
Denn  v.  Diamond,  4  B.  &  C.  243: 
998. 
v.  Reid.  10  Pet.  524:   699,  701. 
1070. 
Dennick  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  103 

U.  S.  11:  88,  617. 
Denning  v.  Corwin,  11  Wend.  647: 
1048. 
v.  Smith,  3  John.  Ch.  331:  1137. 
v.  Yount.  62  Kan.  217:  557. 
v.  Yount,  9  Kan.  App.  708:  557. 
Dennis  v.  Moses,  18  Wash.  537:  464, 

694,  711. 
Dennison  v.  Allen,  106  Mich.  295: 

.  524, 
Denniston's  Appeal,  8  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

212:    170. 
Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  439: 
1197. 
v.  Mattoon,  2  Allen,  361:  19. 
v.  McCown,  34  Ora  47:  550, 776. 
Dent  v.  Ross,   52   Miss.  188:   1049, 
1055. 
v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  114: 

427. 
ton  v.  Reading,  22  La.  Ann.  607: 
699. 
Dent/. ■:  v.  Waldie,  30  Cal.  138:  550, 


Denver  v.  Spokane  Falls,  7  Wash. 

226:  394. 
Denver  Circle  R  R,  Co.  v.  Nestor, 

10  Colo.  403:  446. 
Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  9  N.  M.  389:  624. 
Department  of  Pub.  Parks,  In  re, 

86  N.  Y.  487:  218,  221.  228. 
Depas  v.  Riez,  2  La.  Ann.  30:  724. 
De  Pass  v.  Bidwell,  124  Fed.  615: 

1174. 
De  Pauw  v.  New  Albany,  22  Ind. 

204:  636. 
Deposit  v.  Vail,  5  Hun.  310:  577. 
Dequasei  v.  Harris,  16  W.  Va.  345 

1050,  1061. 
Dequindre  v.  Williams,  31  Ind.  444 

013. 
Derr  v.  Lubey,  1  MoArthur,  187 

1102. 
De  Russey  v.  Davis,  13  La.  Ann.  468 

1033. 
Desban  v.  Pickett,  16  La.  Ann.  350 

466. 
De  Sentamanat  v.   Soule,  33  La. 

Ann.  609:  799. 
Des  Moines  v.  Gilchrist,  67  Iowa, 

210:  1046,  1140. 
Desmond    v.    Dunn,   55    Cal.    242: 

402. 
Desnoyer  v.  McDonald,  4 Minn.  515: 

611. 
De  Sobry  v.  De  Laistre,  2  H.  &  J. 

191;  622,  869. 
Deters  v.  Renick,  37  Mo.  597:  527. 
Detroit  v.  Chaffee,  70  Mich.  80: 1020. 
v.  Chapin,  108  Mich.  136:  104, 

545. 
v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co., 
184  U.  S.  368:  193,  200,259, 
1198. 
v.  Plank  Road  Co.,  43  Mich.  140: 

1193. 
v.  Putnam,  45  Mich.  263,  1020. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxxvii 


The  references  are.to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Detroit  v.  Wayne  Circ.  Judge,  112 

Mich.  317:  231. 
Detroit  Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  De- 
troit, 110  Mich.  384:  1024. 
v.  Detroit  Ry.  Co.,  171  U.  S.  48: 
1024,  1028. 
Detroit  Home  School  v.  Detroit,  76 

Mich.  521:  1008. 
De  Vaucene,  In  re,  31  How.  Pr.  337: 

211,  222,  345,  356,  581. 
De  Veaux  v.  De  Veaux,  1  Strob.  Eq. 

283:  748,  958. 
Deven  v.  York  City,  156  Pa.  St.  359: 

674.  814. 
Dever  v.  Corn  well,  10  N.  D.  123: 

328. 
Devers  v.  York  City,  150  Pa.  St. 

208:  1230,  1232. 
Devine  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  84  111. 

590:  40,  402,  403. 
Devoy  v.  Mayor,  35  Barb.  284:  458. 

v.  Mayor,  36  N.  Y.  449:  458. 
De  Vries  v.  Conklin,  22  Mich.  255: 

1063. 
Dew  v.  Cunningham,  28  Ala.  471: 

94. 
De  Walt  v.  Bartley,  146  Pa.  St.  529: 

303. 
De  war's  Estate,  10  Mont.  426:  429. 
Dewart  v.  Purdy,  29  Pa.  St.  113:  641. 
Dewees  v.  Colorado  Co.,  32  Tex.  570: 

871. 
Deweese  v.  Smith,  106  Fed.  438:  892. 
Dewey  v.  Des  Moines,  101  Iowa,  416: 
542. 
v.  Goodenough,  56  Barb.  54: 964, 

1059,  1061. 
v.  Gray,  2  Cal.  374:  908. 
v.  United  States,  178  U.  S.  510: 
137,  696,  746. 
Dewhurst  v.  Allegheny,  95  Pa.  St. 
437:  581. 
v.  Feilden,  7  M.  &  G.  182:  809, 
921. 


De  Winton  v.  Mayor,  26  Beav.  533: 

515,  662. 

v.  Mayor,  28  L.  J.  Ch.  600:  662. 

De  Witt  v.  Smith,  63  Mo.  263:  1255. 

De  Wolf  v.  Raband,  1  Pet.  479:  614, 

615. 
Dexter  v.  Cranston,  41  Mich.  448: 
331,  335. 
v.  Shepard,  117  Mass.  480:  334. 
v.  Sprague,  22  R.  L  324:  770. 
Dexter  &  L.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  16 

Barb.  15:  516. 
Deyrand's  Succession,  9  Rob.  (La.) 

357:  1158. 
D'Getti  v.   Sheldon,  27  Neb.  829: 

1002. 
Diamond  Glue  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Glue 

Co.,  187  U.  S.  611:  1194. 
Diana  Shooting  Club  v.  Lamereux, 

114  Wis.  44:  191,  222,  253. 
Diana,  The,  4  Moore  P.  C.  11:  1005. 
Dibrell  v.  Dandridge,  51  Miss.  55: 

1049,  1056. 
Dickenson  v.  Breeden,  30  111.  279: 
606. 
v.  Fletcher,  L.  R  9  C.  P.  8:  777, 
970. 
Dickerson  v.  Central  R.  R  Co.,  7 

Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  104:  1288. 
Dickey  v.  Hurlburt,  5  Cal.  343:  20. 
Dickhaut  v.  State,  85  Md.  451:  1297. 
Dick  ins  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R  R.  Co.,  23 

N.  Y.  159:  1291. 
Dickinson  v.  Northeastern  Ry.  Co., 
2  H.  &  C.  735:  1291. 
v.  Rohn,  98  111.  App.  245:  1260. 
v.  State,   38  Tex.   Crim.   App. 

472:  518. 
v.  Van  Wormer,  39  Mich.  141: 
1057. 
Dick's  Appeal,  106  Pa.  St.  589:  528, 

809,  1052,  1248. 
Dickson  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 
77  111.  331:  739,797. 


Ixxviii 


1  All!  1      OF    I   AM  S     I 


iiu>  references  ;"<x  to  the  pages:  VoL  i.  pp.  1-408;  Vol.  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


riok   v.   Riohley,  2  Hill,  271: 

Diesing  v.  Reilly,  77  Ma  App.  450: 

Dietrich,  In  re,  83  Wash.  471:  447, 

!n  iv.  56  Barb.  501:  011,618. 
Diggle  v.  London,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  5 

142:  1140. 
Dikeman   v.    Dikeman,    11    Paige, 

484:   1010. 
Dillard,  Ex  parte,  68  Ala.  594:  827. 
Dillard  v.  Alexander,  9  Heisk,  719: 
37. 
v.  Noel,  2  Ark.  449:  1053. 
Dillon  v.  Bicknell,  116  CaL  111:  516, 

v.  Dougherty,   2    Grant's   Cas. 

99:  1217. 
v.  Linder,  36  Wis.  344:  55a 
Dingley  v.  Moor,  Cro.  Eliz.  750:  456. 
Dinkins  v.  Gottselig,  90  Mo.  App. 

639:  847. 
Dinsmon  v.  State,  61  Neb.  41S:  9. 
Dismukes  v.  Stokes,  41  Miss.  431: 

550. 
Disora  v.  Phillips,  10EL  Cas.  624: 
622. 

illed  Spirits,  11  DalL  356,  20  L, 

Ed.  167:  463. 

]  )i  trict  of  Columbia  v.  Hutton,  143 

U.  S.  18:  463,  519,  573,  847, 

954. 

v.  Reutter,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

:  498,  883. 
v.  Sisters  of  Visitation,  15  App. 
Caa  <D.  C.)  300:  503,  1004. 
v.  Washington  Market,  108  U. 
S.  243:  882. 
District  Township  v.  Dubuque,  7 
Iowa.  26  - 
v.  French,  40  Iowa,  601:  1016. 
Divet  v.  Richland  Co.,  8  N.  D.  65: 


Divine  v.  Harvie,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  443: 

987. 
Dixon  v.  Nichols.  39  III.  372:  876. 
v.  Roe.  159  Ind.  492:  201.  356, 

417,  582. 
v.  Thatcher,  14  Ark.   141:  619. 
Doan  v.  Boley,  88  Ma  449:  117. 
Doane  v.  Omaha, 58  Neb.  815:  1151. 
Dobbins  v.  First  Nat,  Bank,  113  111. 
553:  680,1226. 
v.   Northampton,  50  N.    J.  L. 
496:  378 
Dobbs  v.  Grand  Junction  W.  W.,  L, 

R.  9  Q.  B.  D.  158:  463. 
Dobson,  Matter  of,  146  N.  Y.  357: 

534. 
Dobson  v.  State,  69  Ark.  376:  135, 

955. 
Dockstader  v.  Sammons,  4  Hill,  546: 

1306. 
Dodd  v.  State,  18  Ind.  56:  651. 
Dodge,  Ex  parte,  7  Cow.  147:  335. 
Dodge    v.    Chicago,    201     111.    68: 
951. 
v.  Gardiner,  31  N.  Y.  239:  864, 

8S5. 
v.  Gridley,  10  Ohio,  173:  853. 
v.  Nevada  Nat  Bank,  109  Fed. 

726:  1160,  1165. 
v.  Platte  Co.,  16  Hun,  285:  1217. 
v.  Williams,  46  Wis.  92:  29,  609. 
v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  331:  631, 
1217. 
Doe  v.  Avaline,  8  Ind.  6:  1015. 
v.  Chum,  1  Blackf.  336:  1047. 
v.  Considine,  6  Wall.  458:  723, 

744,  798. 
v.  Eslava,  11  Ala.  1028:  606,  618. 
v.  Evans,  1  Cr.  &  M.  450:  1117. 
v.  Harvey,  4  B.  &  C.  610:  747. 
v.  Nay  lor,  2  Blackf.  32:  562. 
v.  Snaith,  8  Bing.  146:  998. 
v.  Waterton,  3  B.  &  Aid.  149: 
1100. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-€03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Doggett    v.     Catterns,    17   C.    B. 
(N.  S.)  669:  836. 
v.  Walter,  15  Fla.  355:  893. 
Doherty  v.  Allman,  L.  R  3  App. 
Cas.  709:  932. 
v.  Ransome  Co.,  5  N.  D.  1:  146. 
Dolan,  Exparte,  128  Cal.  460:  465. 
Dolan  v.  Thomas,  12  Allen,  421 :  485. 
Dolder    v.    Huntingfield,    11    Ves. 

283:  869. 
Dole  v.  Wilson,  16  Minn.  525:  867. 
Dolese  v.  Pierce,  124  111.  140:  243. 
Dollman  v.  Moore,  70  Miss.  267:  771, 

1202. 
Domick  v.  Michael,  4  Sandf.  374: 

77S. 
Don  v.  Lippmaun,  5  CL  &  Fin.  1, 

1211. 
Donaldson  v.  Beckett,  2  Bro.  P.  C. 

129:  1058. 
Donley  v.  Pittsburgh,  147  Pa.  St. 

348:  303. 
Don  Ion  v.  Jewett,  88  Cal.  530:  802. 
Donnell  v.  State,  48  Miss.  679:  12, 

38,  39. 
Donner  v.  Palmer,  23  Cal.  40:  642. 
Donnersberger  v.  Prendergast,  128 

111.  229:  203,  234,  273. 
Donohue  v.    Ladd,   31   Minn.  244: 

797. 
Dooley  v.  Moore,  20  Cal.  14;  1136. 
Doolubda-s  v.  Rami  oil,  7  Moore,  P. 

C.  239:  642. 
Doores  v.  Varnon,94  Ky.  507:  1124. 
Dorland  v.  Burlingame,  78   Mich. 

182:  1149,  1153. 
Dormidy  v.  Sharon  Boiler  Works, 

127  Fed.  485:  614. 
Dorr  v.  Gibboney,  3  Hughes,  382: 

37. 
Dorrance  v.  Dorranceton,  181  Pa, 

St.  164:  303. 
Dorris  v.  Erwin,  101  Pa,  St.  239: 

1032,  1294. 


Dorsey  v.  Dorsey,  37  Md.  64:  343. 
Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St  192:  186. 

193,  201,  202,  251,  254,  581. 
Dougherty  v.  Austin,  94  Cal.  601: 
156,  409. 
v.  Bethune,  7  Ga.  90:  658. 
Doughty  v.   Hope.   3    Denio,   594: 
1059,  1061,  1142. 
v.  Hope,  1  N.  Y.  79:  645,  1047, 
1061. 
Douglas  v.  Douglas,  5  Hun,  140: 

521,  778. 
Douglas  Co.  v.  Hayes,  52  Neb.  191: 

432,  451. 
Douglass  v.  Chosen  Freeholders,  38 
N.  J.  L.  212:  697,  701,  702, 
704,  705. 
v.  Eyre,  Gilpin,  148:  756,  799. 
v.  Pike  Co.,  101  U.  S.  677:  640, 

906,  907,  1196. 
v.  Placerville,  18  Cal.  643:  1033. 
Douglass'   Petition,   46   N.   Y.   42: 

1142. 
Douglass'  Petition,  In  re,  58  Barb. 

174:  1115. 
Dousman    v.    O'Malley,    1     Doug. 

(Mich.)  450:  327,  330. 
Dover   v.  Grey,   62  N.   J.   L.  647: 

592. 
Dover  Gas  L.  Co.  v.  Dover,  7  De  G. 

M.  &  G.  545:  1244. 
Dow  v.  Beidelman,   49  Ark.   325: 
412. 
v.  Electric  Co.,  68  N.  H  59:  549. 
v.  Johnson,  100  U.  S.  158:  37. 
Dowde'.l  v.  State,  58  Ind.  333:  481, 

483. 
Dowdy  v.  Wamble,  110  Mo.   280: 

885." 
Dowling  v.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  92 
Wis.  63:  154. 
v.  Salliotte,  83  Mich.  131:  469. 
v.  Smith,  9  Md.  242:  308. 
v.  State,  5  Sm.  &  M.  664:  1182. 


"lxxx 


TAr.l.K    i'K    I'ASKS    ClTKP. 


The  references  nro  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1815. 


Downei  v.  Rugar,  81  Wend.  178: 

Powney  v.  Heinlrio,  46  Mich.  49S: 

v.  People,  206  111.  280:  42a 
I  owning  v.  Baldwin,  1  S.  &  R  298: 

126a 

v.  Lindsay,  2  Pa.  St.  382:  1270. 
v.  Miltonvale.  3G  Kan.  740:  869. 
v.  OskalooBa,86Iowa,  352: 1154. 
Downs  V.  Commissioners,  2  Penn. 
(Del.)  183:  005. 
v.  Huntington,  35  Conn.   588: 
551.  559,  680. 
Dowty  v.  Pit  wood,  23  Mont  113: 
542, 

e  v.  Banghman,  24  I1L  App. 

614:  1230,  1282. 
v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

v.  Doyle,  50  Ohio  St.  330:  847, 

851,  914,  933,  936. 
v.  Howard,  16  Mich.  261:  1047. 
v.  Mizner,  41   Mich.  549:  327, 
331. 
Dozier  v.  Ellis,  23  Miss.  730:  1015, 

1232. 
Drain   Com'r  v.  Baxter,  57   Mich. 

:e  v.  Andrews,  2  Mich.  203:  336. 
v.  Drake,  4  Dev.  110:  800. 
v.  Fie  we  lien,  33  Ala.  106:  627. 
v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  3S2:869. 

r  Ian,  73  Iowa,  707:  1184. 
v.  State,  5  Test  App.  649:  918. 
v.  Wilkie,  30  Hun,  537:  1210. 
Draper  v.  Falley,  33  Ind.  405:  431, 
. 
baugh's  Appeal,  3  App.  Cas. 
236:  702,  717. 
Drayton  v.  Gritnke,  1  Bailey's  Eq. 

1241. 
Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19   How. 
:.  159. 


Drennan  v.  People,  10  Mich.  169: 

1067. 
Drennen  v.  Banks,  80  Md.  310:  135, 

794. 
Drew  v.  Dequindre,  2  Doug.  (Mich.) 
93:  1049. 
v.  TifTt.  7!)  Minn.  175:  426,  444. 
v.  Wakefield,  54  Me.  291:  G10. 
v.  West  Orange,  64   N.  J.   L, 
481:  272,381. 
Drew  County  v.  Bennett,  43  Ark. 

364:  481. 
Dreyfus  v.  Lanergan,  73  Mo.  App. 

336:  12. 
Driggs  v.  State,  52  Ohio  St.  37:  424. 
Driscoll  v.  Commonwealth,  93  Ky. 

393:  11G3. 
Drummer  v.  Cox,  1G5  111.  648:  1010. 
Drummond   v.  Drummond,   L.   R 

2  Ch.  45:  882. 
Drury  v.  Connell,  177  111.  43:  1314. 
Duane's  Case,  1  Binn.  G01:  554. 
Duanesburgh  v.  Jenkins,  46  Barb. 
294:  1141. 
v.  Jenkins,  57  N.  Y.  191:  1225, 
1228,  1230. 
Du  Bignon  v.  Brunswick,  106  Ga, 

317:  1167,  1222. 
Dubois  v.  Hepburn,  10  Pet  1:  1096. 
v.  McLean,  4  McLean,  486:  640. 
Dubuque,  District  Tp.  of,    v.  Du- 
buque, 7  Iowa,  262:  917,  920. 
Dubuque,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Litch- 
field, 23  How.  66:  1026. 
Dubuque  R  R  Co.  v.  Des  Moines 

R  R  Co.,  109  U.  S.  329. 
Duckstad  v.  Board  of  Co.  Com'rs., 

69  Minn.  202:  1310. 
Dudley  v.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9:  638, 
845,  917,  1056,  1057,  105a 
v.  Reynolds,  1  Kan.  285:  915. 
v.  Steele,  71  Ala,  423:  778. 
v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  54 
Mo.  App.  391:  972. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


lxxxi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  VoL  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Dudley,  Corporation  of,  In  re,  L.  R. 

8  Q.  B.  Div.  93:  948. 
Duecker  v.   Goeres,  104  "Wis.  29; 

1146. 
Duff  v.  Fisher,  15  CaL  375:  899. 
v.  Karr,  91  Mo.  App.   16:  777, 
885,  964. 
Duffy  v.  New  Orleans,  49  La.  Ann. 
114:  359,  399,  888,  893. 
v.  Ogden,  64  Pa.  St.  240:  328. 
Dugan  v.  Bridge  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  303: 
670, 1033. 
v.  Gittings,  3  Gill,  138:  462,  466, 
517,  845. 
Dugan  Cut  Stone  Co.  v.  Gray,  144 

Mo.  497:  1255. 
Duggan   v.  Peoria,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  42 

111.  App.  536:  577. 
Dugger  v.  Ins.  Co.,  95  Tenn.  245: 

135,  416. 
Duke    v.   O'Bryan,    100    Ky.    710: 

475. 
Dulany  v.  Tilghman,  6  G.  &  J.  461: 

1229. 
Dulany's  Lessee  v.  Tilghman,  6  G. 

&  J.  461:  550,  626. 
Dull   v.   People,  4  Denio,  91:  683, 

962. 
Dnluth   v.  Duluth  St.  Ry.  Co.,  60 
Minn.  178:  803. 
v.  Krupp,  46  Minn.  435:  84. 
Duluth  B.  Co.  v.  Koon,  81  Minn. 

486:  354,  367,  370,  423. 
Dumford,  In  re,  7  Kan.  App.  89:  6, 

12. 
Dunbar  v.  Boston  &  P.  R.  R.  Co., 
181  Mass.  383:  1218,  1289. 
v.  Roxburghe,  3  CI.  &  F.  335: 
888,  895. 
Duncan,  In  re,  139  U.  S.  449:  99, 

127. 
Duncan  v.  Cobb,  32  Minn.  460-  1287. 
v.  Drakeley,  10  Ohio,  47:  1056. 
v.  State,  7  Humph.  148:  683. 


Dun  combe  v.  Felt,  81  Mich.  332: 
1052. 
v.  Prindle,  12  Iowa,  1:  59,  608, 
658,  867. 
Dunelm,  The,  L.   R  9  P.  D.  171: 

755. 
Dunham  v.  Anders,  128  N.  C.  207: 
55a 
v.  Linderman,  10  Okl.  570:  787. 
v.  Sage,  52  N.  Y.  229:  505. 
v.  Wright,  53  Pa.  St.  167:  1142. 
Dunlap,  Ex  parte,  71  Ala.  93:  731. 
Dunlap  v.  Crawford,  2  McCord,  Eq. 
171:  684. 
v.  Wagner,  85  Ind.  529:  1267, 
1272. 
Dunmore  Borough's  Appeal,  52  Pa. 

St.  374:  1194. 
Dunn  v.  Dewey,  75  Minn.  153:  1217 
v.  Great  Falls,  13  Mont.  58:  586 
v.  Stevens,  62  Minn.  380:  1190 
1205. 

Dunne  v.  Kansas  City  Cable  Ry 

Co.,  131  Mo.  1:  346,  370,  404,  406 

Dunnenbaum  v.   Schram,  59  Tex, 

281:  1247. 
Dunton  v.  Hume,  15  App.  Div.  122 

302. 
Dunwell  v.   Bidwell,  8   Minn.  18 

1257. 
Du  Page  Co.  v.  Jenks,  65  111.  275 

1048. 
Duquesne  Savings  Bank's  Appeal 

96  Pa.  St.  298:  914. 
Duramus  v.  Harrison,  26  Ala.  326 

778. 
Durand  v.  Gage,  76  Mich.  624:  1117, 

1123. 
Durbin  v.  People,  54  111.  App.  101: 

770. 
Durham  v.  Inhabitants,  4  Greenl. 
140:  19. 
v.  Lewiston,  4  Me.  140:  343. 
v.  Linderman,  10  Okl.  570:  707. 


1 xx  x  i  i 


fABLE    01    0A&B8    CI  M  D. 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  l.  pp.  i  808;  Vol.  n.  pp.  606-1818. 


Durham  v.  Richmond  &  D.   EL  EL 
\.  G  399:  897. 
?,  State,  B9  Tenn.  728:  47ft 
Durkee  v.  Janesville,  86  Wia  G97: 

Durkin  v.  Kingston  Coal  Co.,  171 

Pa.  St  193:   U& 
Duryee  v.  Mayor,  96  N.  Y.  477:  577. 

57& 
Dutton  v.  Howell.  Show.  P.  C.  32: 

Duval  v.  Hunt.  34  Fla.  85:  784.  785. 

v.  Malone,  UGratt  28:  1160. 
Dwelly  v.  Dwelly,  46  Me.  377:  470. 

644.  862 
Dwight  v.  Richardson,  12  Sm.  &M. 

611,  621. 
Dwyer  v.  Parker.  115  CaL  544:  408, 
580,  597. 
v.  Smelter  City  State  Benk,  80 
Colo.  315:  786. 
Dyer  v.  Belfast,  88  Me.   140:  1158, 
1168,  1220,  1288. 
v.  Best,  L.  R.  1  Ex.  152:  888. 
v.   Covington,  28  Pa.   St   186: 

528 
v.  Ellington,  126  N.  C.  941:  555. 
v.  Last,  51  III.  179:  872. 
v.  Smith.  12  Conn.  384:  618,620. 

622. 
v.  State.  Meigs,  237:  308,  562. 
Dyker  Meadow  L.  &  I.  Co.  v.  Cook, 

\pp.  Div.  164:  248. 
Dyson  v.  Sheley.  11  Mich.  527:  1054. 
v.  West  1  Har.  &  J.  507:  1050, 
1061. 

E. 

E.  A.  Chat  field  Co.  v.  New  Haven, 
110  Fed  788:  11,  U 

Eagan  v.   Roc  Hun,  331: 

v.  State,  53  Ind.  102:  876. 


Eager's  Petition, 58 Bail..  557:  1328. 
Eakin  v.  Raub,  12  8.  &  EL  868:  610. 
Earhart  v.  State  67  Miss.  325:  786, 
797,  B01. 

Earle  v.    Board   of   Education,   55 

CaL  489:  402,  432. 
Earl    of    Ailslmry    v.    Pattison,    1 

Doug.  28:  845,  853. 
Earl  of  Shrewsbury  v.  Scott,  6  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  1 :  627. 
Earl  of  Waterford's  Peerage,  6  CI. 

&  V.  173:  888. 
Early  v.  Doe,  16  How.  615:  334. 
Earth  man   v.  Jones,   2  Yerg.  484: 

1048. 
Easley    v.    Whipple,   57  Wis.    485: 

912. 
Eastern  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  William- 
son, 189  U.  S.  122:  613,  623. 
East  Haven  v.  Hemingway,  7  Conn. 

186:   1039. 
East   India   Interest,  3  Bing.  196: 

961,  965. 
East  Jordan  L.  Co.  v.  East  Jordan, 

100  Mich.  201:  306. 
Eastman   v.   McAlpin,  1  Ga.    157: 
649. 
v.  McCartin,  70  N.  H.  23:  1237. 
East  St.   Louis  v.  Underwood,  105 

111.  308:  1213. 
East  Tenn.  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mahoney, 

89  Tenn.  311:  733,  743. 
East  Union  Tp.  v.  Ryan,  86  Pa.  St 

459:  1045. 
Eastwood  v.  Miller,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B. 

440:  837. 
Eaton  v.  Bennett.  ION.  D.  346:  1138. 
v.  Brown.  97  Cal.  371:   427. 
v.  Burke,  66  N.  H  306:  462,  500. 
v.  Green,  22  Pick.  520:  912. 
v.  Guarantee  Co.,  11  N.  D.  79: 

191,  240. 
v.    Supervisors,   40    Wis.    668: 
12S7. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxxxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Eaton  v.  Walker,  76  Mich.  579:  234, 

252,  263. 
Eau  Claire  National  Bank  v.  Ben- 
son, 106  Wis.  624:  906. 
v.  Macauley,  101  Wis.  304:  1208. 
Ebbs  v.  Boulnois,  L.  R.  10  Ch.  479: 

715. 
Eby's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  311,  813. 
Eck  v.  Hoffman,  55  Cal.  502,  1261. 
Eckart  v.  State,  5  W.  Va.  515:  592, 

601. 
Eckerd  v.  Perry  Co.  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

284:  500. 
Eckloff  v.  District  of  Columbia,  4 

Mackay,  572:  513. 
Eddy  v.  Courtright,  91  Mich.  264: 
1263. 
v.  Kincaid,  28  Ore.,  537:  7. 
Eden  v.  People,  161  111.  296:  419. 
Edenburgh  R.  R.  v.  Wanchope,  8 

CL  &  F.  710:  626. 
Edge  v.  Commonwealth,  7  Pa.  St. 

275:  932. 
Edgecomb  v.  His  Creditors,  19  Nev. 

149:  816. 
Edgerv.  Co.  Com'rs,  70  lnd.  331: 

881,  882. 
Edgerly  v.  Bush,  81  N.  Y.  199:  617. 
Edinburgh,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Lin- 
lithgow, 3  Macq.  H.  L.  Cas.  704: 
658. 
Edmonds  v.  Herbrandson,  2  N.  D. 
270:  339,  370,  397,  597,  598. 
v.  Law  ley,  6  M.  &  W.  285:  641, 
1170,  1226. 
Edmundson  v.  Wragg,  104  Pa.  St. 

500,  332,  336. 
Edson  v.  Hayden,  20  Wis.  682:  821. 
Edward  v.  Trevellick,  4  E.  &  B.  59: 

979,  1108. 
Edwards  v.  Cleveland  Dryer  Co.  83 
111.  App.  643:  988. 
v.  Darby,  12  Wheat.  206:  890. 
v.  Davis,  16  John.  281:  645. 


Edwards  v.  Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  R 
Co.    13  Colo.   59:  199,  433, 
510,  739,  797,  916. 
v.  Dick.  4  B.  &  Aid.  212:  711. 
v.  Gaulding,  38  Miss.  118:  861, 

862,  1059. 
v.  Grand  Junction  R.  R.  Co., 

10  Eng.  Ch.  85:  628. 
v.  Hall,  30  Ark.  31;  1118. 
v.  Jaggers,  19  lnd.  407:  1194. 
v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  595:  1190, 

1204,  1211. 
v.  Morton,  92  Tex.  152:  694,  695, 

711,  743. 
v.  Police  Jury,  39  La.  Ann.  855: 

249. 
v.  Williamson,  70  Ala.  145:  643, 
927. 
Edworthy  v.  Iowa  L.  &  S.  Ass'n, 

114  Iowa,  220:  1224 
Egerton  v.  Third  Municipality,  1 

La.  Ann.  435:  687,  724,  1103. 
Egnew  v.  Cochrane,  2  Head,  320: 

31,  609,  618,  874,  886. 
Egypt  Street,  2  Grant's  Cas.  455: 

463. 
Ehrsam,  Matter  of,  37  App.  Div. 

272:  758,  772. 
Eichholtz  v.  Martin,  53  Kan.  486: 

136,  339,  410. 
Eilers  v.  Wood,  64  Wis.  422:  862. 
Eingartner  v.  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  103 

Wis.  373:  1218,  1289. 
Einstein  v.  Sawhill,  2  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)  10:  758. 
Eiskine  v.  Nelson  Co.,  4  N.  D.  66: 

1151. 
Ek   v.  St.  Paul   Permanent   Loan 

Co.,  84  Minn.  245:  191,  269. 
Eld    v.   Gorham,  20   Conn.  8:   50, 

97. 
Elder  v.  Bemis,  2  Met.  599:  932. 
v.  Bradley,  2  Sneed,  252:  329. 
v.  State,  96  lnd.  162:  356 


I  xxxi  v 


TABl  l     OF    casts   CITED. 


TUo  reference!  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  n,  pp.  oob-isis. 


trio  1 ..  >\  P.  Ca  v.  San  Borna- 
dino,  1""  CaL  848:  774. 

■    t '.  >.  v.  Van  Auken, 
9  Colo.  20 ! :  666,  1 102. 

11   v.  Stillwater  St  Ry.  Co.,  53 
Minn.  68:  772. 

.   Bydraulio  Co.  v.  Elgin,  194 
111.  1070. 

Eliot    v.  Bimrod,  108  Pa.  St.  569: 

769,  7;:.  1005. 
Elizabetbtown,   etc.   R.  R   Co.   v. 
Elizabethtown,  12  Bash, 283:  466, 
511. 

v.  Campbell,  IS  Colo.  510:  884. 
Ellicott  Machine  Co.  v.  Speed,  72 

Ml.  22:  80L 
Ellin-ham   v.  Mount,  43  N.  J.  L. 

945. 
Elliott  v.  Brazil  Block  Coal  Co.,  25 
Ind.  A  pp.  592:  84G. 
v.  Chapman.  15  CaL  383:  1136. 
v.  Detroit,  121  Mich.  611:  176. 
v.  Lochnane,  1  Kan.  135:  54a 
v.  Oliver,  22  Ore.  44:  135. 

te.  91   Ga.  694:  201,  256, 
581,  591. 
v.  Swart  wout,  10  Pet.  137:  754, 
958. 
Elliot's  Ex'r  v.  LyelL  3  Call,  268: 

1160. 
Ellis,  Ex  parte,  11  Cal.  222:  605,  704, 

Ellis  v.  Cora'rs,  2  Gray,  378:  624 
v.  Frazier,  38  Ore.  402:  426. 
v.  Hutchinson,   70    Mich.    154: 

v.  Maxson,  10   Mich.   186:  610, 

611. 
v.  Miller,  136  Ala.  185:  300. 
v.  Murray.    28    Miss.    129:    811, 

rthern  Pac.  R  R  Co,  77 

v.  Owens.  10  M.  ic  W.  521 


Ellis  v.  Paige,  1  Pick.  43:  515,  517, 
520. 
v.  Park,  8  Tex.  205:  880. 
v.  People,    159    III.   837:    1127, 

1144. 
v.  Whitlock,  10  Mo.  781:  991r 

1246. 
v.  Wiley,  17  Tex.  134:  619. 
Ellis  Co.  v.  Thompson,  95  Tex.  22: 

694,  707.  711,  886. 
Ellison  v.  Mobile,  etc,  R  R  Co.,  36 

Miss.  572:  659,708. 
El  men  dor  f  v.  Carmachael,  3  Litt. 
472:  627. 
v.  Taylor.  10  Wheat.  152:  615, 
620,  865. 
Elmensdorf  v.  New  York,  25  Wend. 

693:  1140. 
Elmwood  v.  Marcy,  92  U.  S.  289: 

614. 
Elrod  v.  Gilliland,  27  Ga.  467:  462. 
Elsea  v.  Pryor,  87  Mo.   App.   157: 

1288. 
Elsworth  v.  Cole,  2  M.  &  W.  31: 

655. 
Elting  v.  Hickman,  172  Mo.  237: 

302,  429. 
Elton   v.   Geissert,   10  Phila.   330: 
661. 
v.  O'Connor,  6  N.  D.  1:  1197. 
El  wood  v.  Flannigan,  104  U.  S.  562: 

613. 
Ely  v.  Holton,  15  N.  Y.  595:  442, 
4  13,  400.  642. 
v.  James,    123    Mass.   36:    618, 

022. 
v.  Thompson,  3  A.  K.   Marsh. 
70:  457,  402. 
Emanuel  v.  Constable,  3  Russ.  436: 

65a 

Embry  v.  State,  109  Ga.  101:  341. 
Emerick  v.  Harris,  1  Bin.  416:  570. 
Emerson  v.  Atwater,  7  Mic! 
898. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I  ,pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Emerson  v.  Clayton.  32  111.  493:  505. 
v.  Commonwealth,  108  Pa.  St. 
Ill:  111?. 
Emery  v.  Berry,  23  N.  H.  486:  619, 

620. 
Emigrant  Industrial  S.  Bank,  In  re, 

75  N.  Y.  388:  1141. 
Emmons  v.  Lewiston,  132  111.  380: 

749,  771. 
Emory  v.  Addis,  71  111.  273:  1265, 

1268,  1269. 
Empire    State    Savings    Bank    v. 

Beard,  81  Hun,  184:  557. 
Employers'  L.  Co.  v.  Commissioner 

of  Ins.,  64  Mich.  614:  889. 
Emporia  v.  Norton,  13  Kan.  569: 
430. 
v.  Norton,  16  Kan.  236:  446. 
v.  Randolph,  56  Kan.  117:  155. 
Emsworth  Borough,  Matter  of,  5 

Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  29:  447,  448,  518. 
Enfield  Tool  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hartford, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Conn.  40:  1194. 
Engleking  v.  Von  Wamel,  26  Tex. 

469:  747. 
Englehardt  v.  State,  88  Ala.  100: 

1158. 
Engleken  v.  Hilger,  43  Iowa,  563: 
1267. 
v.  "Webber,  47  Iowa,  558:  1273. 
English  v.  Beard,  51  Ind.  489:  1262, 
1263, 1267. 
v.  Danville,  150  111.  92:  452. 
v.  Oliver,  28  Ark.  317:  85,  608. 
v.  State,  31  Fla.  340:  578,  580, 

757. 
v.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  171:  222. 
English  &  S.  A.  M.  Co.  v.  Hardy, 

93  Tex.  289:  239,  240,  437,  593. 
Enloe  v.  Reike,  56  Ala.  500:  511. 
Ennis  v.  Crump,  6  Tex.  34:  778. 
v.  Shiley,  47  Iowa,  552:  1273. 
v.  Smith,  14  How.  400:  616,  618, 
622. 


Enos  v.  Buckley,  94  111.  458:  505. 

v.  Snyder,  131  Cal.  68:  307. 
Ensign  v.  Basse,  107  N.  Y.  329:  287. 
Enterprise,  Schooner,  1  Paine,  32: 

959,  962,  970. 
Enterprize  v.  Smith,  62  Kan.  815: 

271,  749. 
Entick  v.  Carrington,  19  How.  St. 

Tr.  1029:  1084. 
Epperson   v.  New  York  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  90  Mo.  App.  432:  444. 
Epps  v.  Epps,  17  111.  App.  196:  674, 

675. 
Equitable  G.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Donahoe, 

3  Penn.   (Del.)  191:  254,  458,  593. 
Equitable  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gleason,  56 

Iowa,  48:  1184. 
Erb  v.  Grimes,  94  Md.  92:  326. 
Erhard  v.  Clearfield  Coal  Co.,  5  Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  611:  461,  6S5,  1065. 
Erickson  v.  Cass  Co.,  11  N.  D.  494: 

227,  236. 
Erie  v.  Brady,  150  Pa.  St.  462:  176. 
v.  Knapp,  29  Pa.  St.  173:  1102. 
Erie,  etc.   R.   R.   Co.    v.   Casey,   I 

Grant's  Cas.  274:  19. 
Erkman  v.  Carnes,  101  Tenn.  136: 

1059, 1060. 
Erlinger  v.  Boneau,  51  111.94:  172. 
Ernst  v.  Morgan,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  391; 

378. 
Ernst  Bros.  v.  Hollis,  89  Ala.  633: 

1206. 
Erskine  v.  Nelson  Co.,  4  N.  D.  66: 
926,  1150,  1230. 
v.  Steele  Co.,  87  Fed.  630:  1230, 
1238. 
Escondido  High  Sch.  Dist.  v.  Es- 

condido  Sem.,  130  Cal.  128:  428. 
Eshleman's  Appeal,  74  Pa.  St.  42; 

760. 
Eskridge  v.  Ditmars,  51  Ala.  245.: 
1225. 
v.  Emporia,  63  Kan.  368:  155. 


I  \  xx  vi 


r  \-i  s   CI  rin. 


\  i  '   I.  pp   i  608;  Vol   it,  | 


Iruder,  r>  Miss.  394: 

v.  Butchman,  l  i  S.&  R 
837. 
Esterbroob  Mfg.  Co  v.  A.hern,80N. 
.!.  Eq.  341:  88a 

3  Appeal,  M    Pa  Bfe  192: 

Etowah  Mill.  Co.  v.  Cronsh;uv,  116 

Ga  106:  851. 
Etter  v.  Ma  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  2  Tex. 

A  PI>.  48:  5ia 
Eudora    v.   Darling,  54   Kan.    854: 

301. 
Eureka  v.  Davis,  21  Kan.  580:  204, 
21& 
v.  Diaz,  89  Cal.  407:  699,  747, 
1298,  1802,  1303. 
Eureka  Case,  4  Sawyer,  302:  I 
Eustis  v.  Kidder,26  Ma  97:  1117. 
Evans  v.  Browne,  30  Ind.  514:  63. 
v.  Denver,  2G  Colo.   193:  1171. 
v.  Jones,  9  Bing.  811:  1093. 
v.  Lumber  Co.,  21  Ohio  C.  C. 

80:  323. 
v.  Memphis,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  56 

Ala.  246:  201,  255. 
v.  Montgomery,  4W.&S.  218: 

is.  1200. 
v.  Myers,  25  Pa,  St,  114:  888. 
v.   Phillippi,  117   Pa   St   226: 

123. 
v.  Pratt,  3  M.  &  G.  767:  1241. 

Hvens,4T.  R.  459:  747,  818. 
v.  Tillman,  38  S.  C.  23S:  707. 
v.  Williams,  2  Drew  &  Sm.  324: 

L160,  1224, 
v.  Willistown,  168  Pa.  St.  578: 

v.  Witraer,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  612: 

Evans-Snider-Buel   Co.   v.  Mc Fad- 
den,  l"-,  Fe  l 
1262. 


Evansville  v.  Bayard,  89  Ind.   150: 

478,  588. 
Evansville,  etc  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Barbed, 
59  End.  592:  824, 
x.  Barbee,  74  Ind.  169:  813. 
Evanturel  v.  Evanturel,  L  1'.  2  P. 

C.  462: 
Everding  v.  McGinn,  23  Ore.   15: 

784. 

Everett  v.  Morrison, 60 Hun,  146:  21. 

v.  State.  33  Fla.  681:  123. 

v.  Wells,  2  Man.  &Gr.  209:  793. 

v.  Wells,  2  Scott.  N.  R.  531:  916. 

Evergreens,  Matter  of,  47  N.  J.  L. 

216:  512. 
Everliam  v.  Hulit,  45  N.  J.  L.  53: 

417. 
Eversole  v.  Chase,  127  Ind.  297:  435, 

436. 
Ewart  v.  Williams,  3  Drew.  21:  881. 
11  v.  Daggo,  108  U.  S.  143:  550, 
1197. 
Ewer  v.  Jones,  2  Salk.  415:  1058. 
Ewing    v.    Ainger,  96    Mich.    587: 
1208. 
v.  Ainger,  97  Mich.  381:  1298. 
v.  Burnet,  11  Pet.  41:688. 
v.  Ewing,  24  Ind.  470:  900. 
v.  Hoblitzelle,  So  Mo.  64:  221. 
v.   Van  Wagenen,  6  Wash.  39, 
547,  1221. 
Ewing's    Case,   5  Gratt.  701:    643, 

1181,  1227. 
Excelsior   M'fg  Co.  v.   Keyset-,  62 

Miss.  155:  1225. 
Excelsior    Petroleum    Co.   v.    Em- 
bury, 67  Barb.  201:  473,  515. 
Eyre  v.  Harmon,  92  Cal.   580:  711, 
991. 
v.  Jacob,  14  Gratt.  422:  928. 
Eyston  v.  Sin. 1.1,  2  Plowd.  465:  693, 

794,  1077,  1081. 
Ezekiel    v.  Dixon,  3  Ga.  151:  695, 
099,  712. 


TABLE    OF    CASKS    CITED. 


lxxxvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-G03;  Vol.  IT,  pp.  G05-1315. 


F. 

Face  v.  Ionia,  90  Mich.  104:  774 
Faclder    v.    Fackler,    14   Mo.    431: 

1-279. 
Fagan  v.  Boyle  Ice  Machine  Co.,  65 

Tex.  324:  1256. 
Fahenstosk  v.  Peoria,  171  111.  454: 

1228. 
Fahey  v.  State,  27  Tex.  App.  146: 

222. 
Fair  v.  Buss,  117  Iowa,  164:  1230, 

1237. 
Fairchild  v.  Gwynne,  14  Abb.  Pr. 
121:  308,  312,321,  884. 
v.    Gwynne,   16  Abb.    Pr.   81: 

1239. 
v.  Masonic  Hall  Ass'n,  71  Mo. 

526:  798. 
v.  United  States,  91  Fed.  297: 
553,1169. 
Fairfield  v.  Gallatin  Co.,  100  U.  S. 
47,  906. 
v.  Ratcliff,  20  Iowa,  396:  1010. 
Fairmont  v.  Meyer,  83  Minn.  456: 

1031. 
Faivre  v.  Mandercheid,  117  Iowa, 

724:  1274. 
Falconer  v.    Campbell,  2  McLean, 
195:  101. 
v.  Robinson,  46  Ala.  340:  204, 
446. 
Falk,  Ex  parte,  42  Ohio  St.  638:  339, 

345,  420. 
Falkner  v.  Dovland,  54  N.J.  L.  409: 

284. 
Fall  Brook  Coal  Co.  v.  Lynch,  47 

How  Pr.  520:  625. 
Fallon,  Ex  parte,  5  T.  R.  283:  327, 

329. 
Fant  v.  Gibbs,  54  Miss.  396:  593. 
Farbish  v.  County  Com'rs,  93  Me. 

117:  788. 
Fargo  v.  Ross,  11  N.  D.  369:  442. 


Farley  v.  Bonham,  2  J.  &  H.  177: 
881. 
v.  De  Waters,  2  Daly,  192:  463, 

487,  490. 
v.  Dowe,  45  Ala.  324:  1201. 
Farmer  v.  People,  77  111.  322:  549, 
681,  1276. 
v.  Shaw,  93  Tex.  438:  847. 
Farmers'  Bank  v.  Hale,  59  N.  Y.  53: 
541,  668,  674,  687,  724. 
v.  Winslow,  3  Minn.  86:  125k 
Farmers'  Co-op.   Creamery  Co.  v. 
Iowa  State  Ins.  Co.,  112  Iowa,  608: 
1160,  1191. 
Farmers',  etc.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc. 

R.  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  143:  926. 
Farmer's  Heirs  v.  Fletcher,  17  La. 

Ann.  142:  899. 
Farmers'  Ind.  Ditch  Co.  v.  Agricul- 
tural D.  Co.,  22  Colo.  513:  225. 
Farmers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Highsmith,  44 

Iowa,  330:  221,  276. 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc. 

R.  M.  Co.,  24  Fed.  407:  222. 
Farmers'  &  M.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dobney, 
62  Neb.  213:  420. 
v.  Dobney,  189  U.  S.  301:  420. 
Farmers'  &  Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank 
v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  29:  967,  989, 
990. 
Farmers'  Turnpike  v.  Coventry,  10 

John.  389:  636. 
Farm  Invest.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  9 

Wyo.  110:  304. 

Farnsworth  v.  Lime  Rock  R.  R.  Co., 

83  Me.  440:  429. 

v.  Lisbon,  62  Me.  451:  145. 

v.  Vance,  2  Cold.  108:  1209. 

Farnum  v.  Blackstone  Canal  Corp., 

1  Sumn.  46:  916. 
Farquharson  v.  Teargin,  24  Wash. 

549:  129. 
Farr  v.  Brackett,  30  Vt.  344:  516. 
v.  Briggs,  72  Vt.  225:  988. 


sviii 


TAB]  E   OF    cas!  9   01  ill'. 


Th<>  rafaranoee  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  i,  pp.  1  BOS;  Vol.  n,  pp.  DOS  1816. 


Barm  v.  Bates,  55  Tex  198:  s::1,. 
Farrell  v.   Pingree,   5   Utah,  448; 

iiea 

v.  si  .:       I  N.  .!.  L  491:  444 
v.  Ti  ;'i!.  108:  158,  197. 

Parrel!  Foundry  v.  Dart,  98  Conn. 
i09,  Mi.  1110. 

Farrelly  v.  Cole,  60  Kan.  336:  112. 

Harrington  v.  Rennie,  9  Caines,  990: 

Fan-is  v.  Henderson,  1  Okl.  384:  43. 

v.  Houston,  78  Ala.  950:  1169. 

v.  Sipes,  99  Tenn.  298:  1961. 
Farson  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  97  Ky. 
119:  46a 

v.  South  Brook,  54  Minn.  117: 

Farwell  v.  Cohen,  138  111.  210:  644, 

v.  Des  Moines  B.  &  M.  Co.,  97 

Iowa,  286:  511,  1003,  1004, 

1005. 

Faulks  v.  People,  39  Mich.  200: 1276. 

Favers  v.  Glass.  22  Ala,  001:  750. 

Favorite  v.  Booher,  17  Ohio  St.  54S: 

1015,  1289. 
Fayette  County  v.  Faires,  44  Tex. 

463,  516. 
Fayetteville  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Bow- 

lin,  63  Ark.  573:  1158,  1191. 
Fears  v.  Riley;  148  Mo.  49:  887. 
Featherstonh   v.    Compton,    8    La. 

5:  1227. 
Fee  v.  Brown,  17  Colo.  510:  1076. 
Feek  v.  Township  Board,  82  Mich. 

Feemster   v.  Ringo,  5  T.  B.  Mon. 

880. 
Feibleman   v.   State,  98  Ind.   591: 

Feldman  v.  Morrison,  1  111.  App. 

Felix   v.   "Wallace   Co.    Com'rs,    62 
8,  9. 


Fell  v.  State,  12  Md.  71:  164,  171. 

pea  v.  clay,  -I  Q.  B.  856:  881. 

Fellows  v.  Allen,  60  N.  H489:  L997. 

v.  Soranton,   1    Pa.    Dist.    Ct. 

554:  814 
v.  Walker.  39  Fed.  651:  377. 
Felt  v.  Felt,  19  Wis.  193:  531,  661, 

919. 
Felton  v.  West,  102  Cal.  266:  710. 
Felts  v.  Delaware,  etc.   R,  R.  Co., 
170  Pa.  St.  432:  530,535. 
v.  Delaware,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  178 

Pa.  St.  290:  530. 
v.  Delaware,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  195 
Pa.  St.  21:  530. 
Fenelon's   Petition,  7   Pa.  St.  173: 

551,  553,  1169. 
Fennell  v.  Ridler,  5  B.  &  C.  406: 

93a 

Fenner  v.  Luzerne  Co.,  167  Pa.  St. 

632:  518. 
Fenton   \:  Blair,  11  Utah,  78:  950. 
v.  Livingstone,  3   Macq.  H.  L. 

497;  25. 
v.  State,  100  Ind.  598:  876. 
v.  Yule,  27  Neb.  758:  177,  434, 
4:36. 
Fenwick  v.  Schmolz,  L.  R  3  C.  P. 

313:  816,  825,  834. 
Ferch  v.  Victoria  Elevator  Co.,  79 

Minn.  416,  646,  987. 
Ferdinand  v.  State,  39  Ala.  706:  S72. 
Ferdou,  Ex  parte,  35  Ore.  171:  518. 
Ferguson,  Ex  parte,  L.  R  6  Q.  B. 

291:  1068. 
Ferguson  v.  Pittsburgh,  159  Pa.  St. 
435:  468. 
v.  Ross,  126  N.  Y.  459:  358,  359, 

366,  399. 
v.  Sand  ford,  59  Hun,  207:  399. 
Fvgusson  v.  Norman,  5  Bing.   N. 

C.  70:  939. 
Fermoy  Peerage  Claim,   5  H   L. 
|      Cas.  747:  886,  895. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


lxxxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Ferris  v.  Higley,  20  Wall.  375:  895, 

1051. 
Ferry  v.  Campbell,  110  Iowa,  290: 

437,  1212. 
Fertilizing  Co.   v.  Hyde   Park,  97 

U.  S.  659:  1035,  1195. 
Fesler  v.  Boynton,  145  Ind.  71:  458, 

566,  593. 
Fessenden    v.   Hill,   6    Mich.   242: 

644.  1049,  1064. 
Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co.  v.  Free- 
man, 109  Fed.  847:  415. 
Fidelity  &  Dep.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 104  Ky.  579:  468. 
Fidelity  Ins.,  etc.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  30 

Wash.  340:  22. 
Fidelity  Ins.,  Trust  &  Safe  Dep.  Co. 
v.  Norfolk  &  W.  R.  R.  Co., 
90  Fed.  175:  1059,  1060. 
v.  Shenandoah  V.  R  R.  Co.,  86 
Va.  1:  252,  256. 
Fidelity  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Douglas,  104 

Iowa,  532:  710,  772. 
Fidelity  Mut.  L.  Ass'n  v.  Mettler, 

185  U.  S.  308:  420. 
Fidelity  Trust  Co.  v.  Gill  Car  Co., 

25  Fed.  Rep.  737:  1052. 
Fidelity  Trust  &  Safety  Dep.  Co.  v. 

Morganfield,  96  Ky.  563:  1130. 
Fidler  v.  Hershey,  90  Pa.  St.  363: 

1248. 
Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  649:  68,  73, 
170,  579,  581. 
v.  Gooding,  106  Mass.  310:  650. 
v.  Hall,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App.  233: 

1145. 
v.  People,  2  Scam.  79:  683. 
v.  Silo,  44  N.  J.  L.  355:  367. 
Fielding  v.  Morley  Corp.  (1899),  1 

Ch.  1:  649. 
Field's  Heirs  v.  Goldsby,  28  Ala. 

218:  900. 
Fifield]v.  Marinette  Co.,  62  Wis.  532: 
1132, 


Files  v.  Fuller,  44  Ark.  273:   457, 

678,  681. 
Fillmore  v.  Van  Horn,  129  Mich. 

52:  72,  78,  88,  651. 
Finch  v.  Birmingham  Canal  Co.,  5 

B.  &  C.  820:  1241. 
Finders  v.  Bodle,  58  Neb.  57:  178, 

1234. 
Finlayson  v.  Peterson,  5  N.  D.  587: 

328,  1065. 
Finlen  v.  Heinze,  28  Mont.  548:  785. 
Finnv.  Haynes,  37  Mich.  63:  610. 
Finnegan  v.  Morenberg,  52  Minn. 

239:  1038. 

Finney  v.  Ackerman,  21  Wis.  268: 

641. 

v.  Guy,  189  U.  S.  335:  613,  623. 

Finnigan  v.  State,  54  Kan.  420:  315. 

Fire  Department  v.  Bacon,  2  Abb. 

App.  127:  633. 
Fireman's  Ben.  Ass'n  v.  Lounsbury, 

21  111.  511:  258. 
First  M.  E.  Church  v.  Fadden,  8  N. 

D.  162:  1226. 
First  Nat,  Bank  v.  Bell  Silver,  etc. 
Co.  8  Mont.  32:  784. 
v.  Chapman,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  79: 

39,  616. 
v.  Cooke,  3  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  278: 

470. 
v.  Covington,    103    Fed.     523: 

1219. 
v.  Holland,  99  Va.  495:  707. 
v.  Lamb,  50  N.  Y.  95:  668. 
v.  Ludvegsen,  8  Wyo.  230:  703, 

711. 
v.  Neill,  13  Mont.  377:  1139. 
v.  Yankton,  101 U.  S.  129:  41, 44 
First  School    Dist.   v.   Ufford,    52 

Conn.  44:  644. 
Fischer  v.  Simon,  95  Tex.  234:  325, 

777,  783. 
Fish  v.  Chicago,  etc.   Ry.  Co.,   82 
Minn.  9:  1226. 


JCC 


i  Ai.i  I     OF    OASES    CITED. 


Tin-  reference  are  i>>  the  pages:  \  <.>U  l.  pp.  1-008;  Vol.  n.  pp.  606-1815. 


Fish    v.  Stookdale,    111    Mich.    40: 

266. 
Fisher  v.  Baldridge,  91  Tenn.  418: 

v.  Bidwell,  87  Conn.  363:  1059. 
v.  Connard,  100  Pa  St  68:  798, 

794,  811,  813. 
v.  Donovan,  57  Neb.  301:  623. 
v.  Green,  143  III  80:  1158. 
v.  Harnden,  1  Paine,  55:  464 
v.  Horicon  I.  Co,  10  Wis.  355. 

v.  McGin,  1  Gray.  1:  583. 

v.  N.  Y.  etc.  K.  K.  Co.,  46  X.  Y. 

644:  555. 
v.  Simon.  95  Tex.  834:  445. 
v.  Wineman,  125  Mich.  643:  141. 
kill  v.F.  &  B.Co.,22  Barb.  031: 
,.  803  203.  2'22,  581. 
Fishwick  v.  Sewell,  4E&J.  399: 

• 
Fisk  v.  Henarie,  140  U.  S.  459:  4G4, 
470,  78L 
v.  Varnell,  39  Tex.  73:  1040. 
Fitch  v.  Applegate,  21  Wash.  25: 

410. 
Fite  v.  Black,  85  Ga.  413:  434. 

gerald,  Matter  of,  2Caines,  318: 
1059. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Champneys,  2  Johns. 
&H.  31:  530. 
v.  Champneys,  30  L.  J.  Ch.  7S2: 

530. 
v.  Kewis,  164  Mass.  495:  444. 
v.  Phelps  &  B.  Windmill  Co., 
42    W.    Ya.    570:    354,    358, 
398,  006. 
v.  Quann,  109  N.  Y.  441:   572. 

v.  Rees.  07  Miss.  473:  094,  707. 

v.   St.  Paul.  29  Minn.  336:  905. 
Fitzpatrick  v.  Board  of  Trustees,  87 
Ky.  132:  1237. 


Fitzpatrick  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ky.  Co., 
139  III.  248:  781. 
v.  Gebhart,  7  Kan.  35:  695,  098, 

704. 
v.  Simouson  Mfg.  Co.,  86  Minn. 
140:   1170. 
Flags.  Ex  parte,  38  Tex.  Crim.  Rep 

573:  267. 
Flagg  v.  Locke.  74  Yt.  320:  1225. 
Flaherty  v.  Thomas,  12  Allen,  428: 

481,  482. 
Flanagan  v.  Plainfield,  44  N.  J.  L. 

118:  001. 
Flanders  v.  Merrimack, 48  Wis.  567: 

545. 
Flanigen  v.  Washington  Ins.  Co.,7 

Pa.  St.  306:  600,  619. 
Flannagan  v.  llynes,  75  Conn.  581: 

1290. 
Flatan  v.  State,  56  Tex.  94:  1118. 
Flat  Rock  v.  Rust,   18  Ind.    App. 

882:  464 
Fleckten  v.  Lamberton,  69   Minn. 

187:  302. 
Fleischner  v.  Chadwick,  5  Ore.  152: 

447,  577,  581. 
Fletcher  v.  Lord   Sondes,  3  Bing. 
580:  963. 
v.Peck.  6Cranch,  87:  925,  1174. 

1192,  1193. 
v.  Prather,  102  Cal.  413:    431, 

430. 
v.  State,  54  Ind.  462:  291. 
Flint  v.  Gauer,  66  Iowa,  600:  1273. 

v.  Lulus,  00  Minn.  57:   1258. 
Flint,  etc.  P.  R.  Co.   v.  Woodhull, 

25  Mich.  99:  5,  701,  925. 
Flint  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Fos- 
ter, 5Ga.  194:  911:   1013. 
Flock  v.  Smith,  65  X.  J.  L.  224:381. 
Florence  Gas.  Elec.  L.  &  P.  Co.  v. 

Hanby.  101  Ala.  15:  547.  1160. 
Florida  Central  &  P.   R.   R.  Co.   v. 
Mooney,  W  Fla  17:784,  785. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


XC1 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-093;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Flory  v.  Wilson,  83  Ind.  391:  1136. 
Flourney  v.  Lewis,  2  Tenn.  Cas.  45: 

430. 
Flower,   Matter  of,   55  Hun,   158: 

1230,  1232. 
Flower  v.  Witkovsky,  69  Mich.  371 : 

1263. 
Floyd  v.  Johnson,  2  Litt.  109:  876. 
v.  Perrin,  30  S.  C.  1:  191,  222, 

259. 
v.  Ricks,  14  Ark.  286:  875. 
Flynn  v.  Abbott,  16  Cal.  358:  651. 
v.  Coakley,  164  111.  470:  298. 
v.  Lemieux,  46  Minn.  458: 1218, 

1288. 
v.  Little  Falls  Elec.  &  Water 
Co.,  74  Minn.  180:  389,  396, 
1031. 
v.  Little  Falls  E.  &  W.  Co.,  77 
Minn.  445:  372. 
Fogg  v.  Holcomb,  64  Iowa,  621:  550, 

872. 
Foby  v.  Bourg,  10  La.  Ann.  129: 
929. 
v.  Fletcher,  28  L.  J.  Ex.  103: 

961. 
v.  Hoboken,  61   N.  J.  L.  478: 

379,  388,  390. 
v.   Royal   Arcanum,   78    Hun, 
222:  1159. 
Foley-Beau  Lumber  Co.    v.   Saw- 
yer, 76  Minn.  118:  921,  934. 
Foliamb's  Case,  5  Coke,  116:  944. 
Folkers  v.  Powers,  42   Mich.   283: 

1009. 
Folliott  v.  Ogden,  1  H.  Black.  135: 

25. 
Folmer's  Appeal,  87  Pa.   St.  133: 

670. 
Folsom    v.    Asper,    25  Utah,  299: 

1205,  1261. 
Folsoms  Petition,  2  T.  &  C.  55: 

1141. 
Foltz  v.  Hoge.  54  Cal.  28:  1066. 


Fontaine  v.  Houston,  58  Ind.  316: 

1050. 
Foot  v.    Stevens,    17    Wend.  488: 

1048. 
Foote  v.   Vanzandt,   34  Miss.   40: 

646,  964. 
Forbe  v.  Foot,  2  McCord,  331:  1279. 
Forbes  v.  Board  of  Health,  27  Fla. 
189:  524. 
v.   Smith,    11    Ex.    161:   1278, 
1280. 
Ford  v.  Booker,  53  Ind.  395:  435. 
v.  Clement,  68  Minn.  484: 1261. 
v.  Delta  &  P.  L.  Co.,  164  U.  S. 

662:  689,  1004. 
v.  Durie,  8  Wash.  87:  789. 
v.  Farmer,  9  Humph.  152:  608. 
v.  Ford,  143  Mass.  577:  799. 
v.  Johnson,  34  Barb.  364: 1099. 
v.  North  Des  Moines,  80  Iowa, 

626:  15a 
v.  Springer  Land  Ass'n,  8  N.  M. 
37:  1255. 
Ford's  Petition,  6  Lans.  92:  1141. 
Fordyce  v.  Bridges,  IE  L  Cas.  1: 
697,  699. 
v.  Goodman,  20    Ohio   St.  1: 
72,  74,  762. 
Fore    v.   Williams,   35    Miss.    533: 

670. 
Fork  Ridge  Baptist  Cem.  Ass'n  v. 

Redd,  10  S.  E.  405;  1041. 
Forqueran  v.  Donnally,  7  W.  Va. 

114:  463,  853. 

Forrester  v.  Boston,  etc.  Min.  Co., 

21  Mont,  544:  572,931,1060. 

v.  Kearney  Nat.  Bank,  49  Neb. 

655:  784. 

Forry  v.  Ridge,  56  Mo.  App.  615: 

889,  897. 
Forshey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  16  Tex.  516: 

1064,  1248. 
Forster  v.  Forster,  129  Mass.  559: 
1224. 


x.-u 


TAlil.K   OF   OASES   OTTED. 


The  reforonoaa  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  i,  pp  I  ,;i>:!;  Vol  n,  pp  608  1816. 


iii  v.  Marbury,  &  M.  Charlt 
540. 
ythe  v.  Warren,  63  III.  08:  829, 
B84 
l\-rt  v.  Burob,  8  Barb.  CO:  853,910, 
1072. 
v.  Cummins,  90  Hun,  481:  184, 

v.  State,  92  Ga.  8:  1109,  1110. 
Ft  Dodge  Elec,  L,  &  P.  Co.  v.  Ft. 

Dodge,  115  Iowa,  568:  Lisa 

Fortier  v.  Moore,  67  N.  II.  400:  1207. 

Fort  Pitt  B.  &  L.  Ass'n   v.  Model 

Plan  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  159  Pa.  St. 

308:  475. 

Fort  Plain  Bridge  Co.  v.  Smith,  30 

N.  V.  44:  548. 
Fort  St.  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Morton, 
83  Mich.  265:  199,  200. 
v.  Railroad    Com'r,    118   Mich. 
340:  231,  234. 
Fortune  v.  St.  Louis,  23  Mo.  239: 

1102. 
Fosdick  v.  Perrysburg,  14  Ohio  St. 

472:  312,  530,  531,  778,  880,  882. 
Foster  v.  Blount,  18  Ala.  687:  660, 
814,  832,  836,  1010. 
v.  Byrne,  70  Iowa,  295:  1190. 
v.  Collner,  107  Pa.  St  305:  710. 
v.  Commonwealth,  8  W.  &  S. 

77:  756,  797. 
v.  Illinski,  3  I1L  App.  345:  1049. 
v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  253:  631. 
v.  Oxford,  eto.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  C. 

B.  200:  939. 
v.  Pritchard,  2  H.  &  N.   151: 

674 
v.  Rhoads,    19  John.    191:  965, 

1047. 
v.  State,  99  Ga.  56:  239. 
v.  Taylor,  2  Overt.  190:  619. 
Foster"*  Case,  11  Co.  506:  661,  671, 

917. 
Fouke  v.  Fleming,  13  Md.  392:  611. 


Fourth  Judicial  District,  In  re,  4 
Wyo.  188:  186,  193,  936. 

Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Francklyn,  120 

U.  S.  747:  747,  865,  866. 
Fowle  v.  Alexandria,  3  Pet.  398: 
1009. 
v.  Kirkland,  18  Pick.  299:  558. 
Fowler  v.  Columbia  Co.,  18  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  653:  443. 
v.  Lamson,  146  111.  472:  620. 
v.  Lewis,  30  W.  Va.  112:  1160, 

1191. 
v.  Padget,  7  T.  R.  509:  756,  797, 

976,  977. 
v.  Peirce,  2  Cal.  165:  60,  104. 
v.  Pirkins,  77  111.  271:  462. 
v.  Scully,  72  Pa.  St.  456:  922, 

938. 
v.  Smith,  2  Cal.  39:  34. 
v.  Stoneum,  11  Tex.  478:  610. 
v.  Tuttle,  24  N.  H.  9:  811. 
v.  Wood,  78  Hun,  304:  735,  751. 
Fox  v.  Allensville,  46  Ind.  31:  334. 
v.  Hale  &  N.  S.  Min.  Co.,  97  CaL 
353:  713,  743. 
•     v.  Kendall,  97  111.  72:  171,  312. 
v.  McDonald,  101  Ala.  51:  5,6. 
v.  New  Orleans,   12  La.   Ann. 

154:  644,  1070. 
v.  Phelps,  20  Wend.  447:  933. 
v.  SIoo,   10   La.   Ann.   11:  644, 
1076. 
Fox's  Appeal.  112  Pa.  St.  337:  1000. 
Foxworthy  v.   Hastings,  23    Neb. 

773:  270. 
Fragley  v.  Phelan,  126  Cal.  383:  428. 
Fraim  v.  Lancaster  Co.,  171  Pa,  St. 

4:30:  533,  654. 
Frame  v.  Thormann,  102  Wis.  653: 

21. 
France  v.  State,  57  Ohio  St.  1:  10, 
11. 
v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  676: 
905. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 
The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  "Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


XC111 


Francklyn  v.  Long  Island  City,  32 

Hun,  451:  1232. 
Frank   v.   San  Francisco,  21    Cal. 

668:  641. 
Frankel  v.   Creditors,  20  Nev.  49: 

786. 
Franklin   v.   Franklin,   1   Md.  Ch. 
342:  644,  1076. 
v.  Hancock,  204  Pa.  St.  110 :  303. 
v.  Hancock,   18  Pa.   Supr.  Ct. 

398:  303. 
v.  Schermerhorn.  8  Hun,  112: 

1266. 
v.  Westfall,  27  Kan.  614:  585. 
v.  Wiggins,  110  Iowa,  702:  317. 
Franklin  Co.  v.  Layman,  145  111. 
138:  730. 
v.  Layman,   43  111.  App.   163: 

730. 
v.  McRaven,  67  Ark.  562:  1020. 
Franklin   Glass  Co.   v.   White,  14 

Mass.  286:  1136. 
Frantz  v.  Jacob,  88  Ky.  525:  503. 
Frary  v.  Allen,  91  Mich.  666:  301. 
Fraser  v.  Willey,  2  Fla.  116:  1121. 
Frasier  v.   Ry.  Co.,  88  Tenn.  138: 
259. 
v.  Tompkins,  30  Hun,  168:  1220. 
Frazer.  Ex  parte,  54  Cal.  94:  577. 
Frazier  v.  Alexander,  75  Cal.  147: 
484. 
v.  Draper,    51    Mo.    App.   163: 

327. 
v.  Ry.  Co.,  88  Tenn.    138:  191, 

200,  488. 
v.  Warfield,  13  Md.  279:  888. 
Frecking  v.  Rolland,  53  N.  Y.  422: 

941. 
Fredericks  v.  Howie,  1  H.  &  C.  381: 

666. 
Frederick  Street,   1  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

283:  464. 
Fred  Miller  Brewing  Co.  v.  Ins.  Co., 
Ill  Iowa,  590:  23,  620. 


Free  v.  Burgoyne,  5  B.  &  C.  400: 

649. 
Freeholders  v.  Stevenson,  46  N.  J. 

L.  173:  378. 
Freeland  v.  Williams,  131  U.  S.  405: 

1213. 
Freeman  v.  People,  4Denio,  9:  634. 
Freestone,  Ex  parte,  25  L.  J.  M.  C. 

121:  804. 
Freiberg   v.   Singer,  90  Wis.   608: 

1235,  1262. 
Freight  Tax  Case,   15  Wall.   232:  - 

585. 
Freman  v.  Marshall,  137  Cal.  159: 

846. 
Freme  v.  Clement,   L.   R.   18  Ch. 
Div.  499:  721. 
v.  Clement,  44  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  399: 
713. 
Fremont  v.  United  States,  17  How. 

542:  606,  617. 
French  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Pa. 
St.  339:  1194. 
v.  Cowan,  4  New  Eng.  Rep.  682: 

894. 
v.  French,  84  Iowa,  655:  770. 
v.  Teschemaker,  24    Cal.    544: 
350. 
Frend  v.  Dennett,  4  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

576:  1140. 
Frick  v.  Los  Angeles,  115  Cal.  512: 

774. 
Friedman  v.  Sullivan,  48  Ark.  213: 

673. 
Fried mann  v.  McGowan,  1  Penn. 

(Del.)  436:  1158,  1287. 
Friend  v.  Dunks,  37  Mich.  25:  1262, 

1264,  1265. 
Frink  v.  Pond,  46  N.  H.  125:  930. 
Frobock  v.  Pattee,  38  Me.  103:  646, 

991. 
Frost  v.  Cherry,  122  Pa.  St.  417:  422. 
v.  Pfeiffer,  26  Colo.  338:  225. 
v.  Wenie,  157  U.  S.  46:  467,  468. 


1  A  i:l.i;    OK    <AM—    (I  11   D. 


The  references  ure  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


tburg  Min.  Co.  v.  Cumberland, 

Bl  M.l.  88:  -109. 
Prothingbam  v. Maroh,  l  Mass.  047: 

. 

Try  v.  Bennett,   10   How.    Pr.   402: 

1018. 

v.  Booth,  19  Ohio  St,  85:  1120. 

Frye  v.  Partridge,  82   111.  867:  401. 

Pryeburg  Canal  v.  Frye,  5  Me.  38: 

634,  63ft 
Fuellhart  v.  Blood,  31  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

601:  885. 
Fuhrman   v.  Jones,  68  Wis.   497: 

1143. 
Fuller  v.  Fuller,  83  Ky.  345:  763. 
v.  Rood,  3  Hill.  258:  041. 
v.  United  States,  48  Fed.  654: 
1160. 
Fuller's  Will,  In  re,  79  III  99:  1097. 
Fullerton  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  1  Pet. 
604:  94ft 
v.  Spring,  3  Wis.  667:  443,  445. 
Fullington  v.  Williams,  98  Ga.  807: 

78,  82,  83,  86,  176,  566,  888,  893. 
Fulton  v.  District  of  Columbia,  2 

App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)431:  517. 
Fultz  v.  Fox,  9  B.  Mon.  499:  1158. 
Funk  v.  St.  Paul  City  Ry.  Co.,  61 

Minn.  435:  417,  772. 
Fuqua  v.  Mullen,  13  Bush,  467:  252, 

254,  581. 
Furbish   v.  County  Com'rs,  93  Me, 

117:   1153,  1154. 
Furman  v.  Nichol,  3  Cold.  432:  463, 
518. 
v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.  44:  463. 
Fnrnivall  v.  Coombes,  5  M.  &  G. 
736:  669. 

G. 

Gabbert  v.  Jefferson  R.  R  Co.,  11 
I  n  1 .  865:  205. 
riel  v.Mullen,  111  Mo.  119:  1297. 


Gaokenbaoh  v.  Lehigh  Co.,  166  Ta. 

St.  448:  303. 
Gage  v.   Chicago,  201   111.  93:  693, 
713,  724,  741,  798,  803. 
v.  Nichols,    185   111.   128:    1158, 
1165. 
Gaines  v.  Coates.  51  Miss.  335:  1021, 
1022. 
v.  Faris,  39  Miss.  403:  947,  1133. 
v.  Horrigan,  4  Lea,  608:  72,  78. 
v.  Williams,  146  111.  450:  199, 

29a 

Gainesville  v.  Simmons,  96  Ga.  477: 

578. 
Gale  v.  Laurie,  5  B.  &  C.  156:  1002. 
v.  Mead,  2  Denio,  160:  1119. 
v.  Mead,  4  Hill,  109:  562,563. 
Galena  v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  705:  463, 

1151. 
Gallagher  v.  MacLean,  193  Pa.  St. 
583:  447. 
v.  Neal,  3  P.  &  W.  183:  968. 
Gallatian  v.  Cunningham,  8  Cow. 

301:    639,  941,  1048. 
Gal  la  way  v.  Maries,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  D. 

275:  837. 
Gallia  Co.  v.  Holcomb,  7  Ohio,  232: 

1033. 
Galloway  v.   Henderson,   136  Ala. 

315:  1027. 
Galpin  v.  Abbott,  6  Mich.   17:  644, 

1004,  1141. 
Galusha  v.  Cobleigh,  13  N.  H.  79: 
1279. 
v.  Wendt,  114  Iowa,  597:  1158, 
1161,  1166. 
Galveston  v.  Menard,  23  Tex.  349: 

1040. 
Galveston,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dun- 
lavy,  56  Tex.  256;  1127. 
v.  Galveston,  96  Tex.  520:  458. 
v.  Gross.  47  Tex.  428:  926,  928. 
v.  Kutac,  72  Tex.  643:  1293. 
v.  Le  Gierse,  51  Tex.  189:  1291. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


XCV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Galveston,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Lynch, 

22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  336:  321. 

v.  State,  81  Tex.  572:  325,  703, 

891. 

Galway  Presentments,  Ex  parte,  9 

W.  R.  C.  L.  114  (Q.  B.):  532. 
Gambart  v.  Ball,  14  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

306:  95a 
Gamble  v.  Beattie,  4  How.  Pr.  41: 

443. 
Gannett,  Matter  of,  11  Utah,  283: 

466.  468.  514,  847. 
Gans  v.  Carter,  77  Md.  1:  301,  469. 

v.  Switzer,  9  Mont.  408:  988. 
Ganssly  v.  Perkins,  30  Mich.  492: 

1263,  1264,  1265. 
Gantz  v.  Toles,  40  Mich.  725:  334. 
Garaty  v.  Du  Bose,  5  S.  C.  493: 1098. 
Garby  v.  Harris,  7  Exch.  591:  714 
Garden  hire  v.  McCoombs,  1  Sneed, 

83:  1225. 
Gardner  v.  Cole,  21  Iowa,  205:  609. 
v.  Collector,  6  Wall  499:  70,  82, 
101,  308,  320,  542,  606,  607, 
608,  866,  867,  884. 
v.  Collins  2  Pet.  58:  621,  699. 
v.  Day,  95  Me.  558:  1268. 
v.  Eberhart,  82  111.  316:  872. 
v.  Heyer,  2  Paige,  11:  1291. 
v.  Lewis,  7  Gill,  377:  25,  622. 
v.  Lucas,  L.  R  3  App.  Cas.  582: 

641,  1226. 
v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  17 

R.  L  790:  26,  988. 
v.  Resumption  M.  &.  S.  Co.,  4 
Colo.  App.  271:  1158. 
Garforth  v.  Fearon,  1  H.  Bl.  327: 

1105. 
Qargorave  v.  Every,  1  Lutw.  C.  P. 

260:  1278. 
Garland,   Ex  parte,   4  Wall.    333: 

1174,  1178. 
Garland  v.  Carlisle,  2  Cr.  &  M.  39: 
887. 


Garland  v.  Hickey,75  Wis.  178:  558. 
v.  Hot  Spring  Co.,  68  Ark.  83: 

883. 
v.  Irrigation  Co..  9  Utah,  350: 
1258. 
Garneau  v.  Port  Blakely  Mill  Co., 

8  Wash.  467:  1190,  1219,  1258. 
Garner  v.  Johnson,  22  Ala.  494:  327. 
Garrett  v.  Mayor,  47  La.  Ann.  618: 

527. 
Garrigus  v.    Board  of  Com'rs,   39 
Ind.  66:  651. 
v.    Com'rs,    157  Ind.    103:   306, 
464. 
Garrison  v.  Cheeny,  1  Wash.  T.  489 : 
1225. 
v.  Hill,  81  Md.  551:   135,  239, 

1161,  1288. 
v.  New  York,  21  Wall.  203: 1213. 
Garvey  v.  People,  6  Cal.  554:  1187. 
Garvin  v.  State,  13  Lea.  162:  202, 
206,  211,  228,  651. 
v.  Wells,  8  Iowa,  286:  869. 
Gas  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  30  W.  Ya. 
435,  1024,  1029. 
v.  Wheeling,  8  W.  Va.  320,  660. 
Gaskin  v.  Anderson,  55  Barb.  259: 
253. 
v.  Meek,  42  N.  Y.  186:  188,  266, 
633. 
Gassenheimer  v.  Dist.  of  Columbia, 

6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  108,  472,  498. 
Gassert  v.  Bogk,  7  Mont.  585:  557. 
Gassett  v.  State,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  561: 

306. 
Gaston  v.  Lamkin,  115  Mo.  20:  788, 
789,  790,  791. 
v.  Merriam,  33  Minn.  271:  523, 

778. 
v.  Stott,  5  Ore.  48:  1122. 
Gas  &  Water  Co.  v.  Downingtown, 

193  Pa.  St.  255:  220. 
Gates  v.  Johnson  Co,  36  Tex.  144: 
871. 


TABLE   OF    0  IlBI  B    OITBD. 


The  rrtweaoai  km  to  ti»>  pages:  Vol  I.  pp.  i-ws;  Vol.  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


-  v.  ICoDaniel,8  Port  856:  947. 
i   Balmon,  BO  Oat  576:  659,709, 

v.  Bhugrue,  86  Minn.  392:  462. 
c.uty  \.   Fry,  L  R.  9  Ex.  Div.  205: 

914 
Ganen  v.  Moredock,  Dr.  Dist,  131 

III.  448:  774,  855. 
Gaul  v.  Brown,  58  Me.  490:  545,555, 
Gauntlet,  The,  L.  R.  3  Adm.  381: 

• 
Gauntlett,  The,  L.  R  4  P.  C.  191: 

96,  Ex  parte,  108  Ala.  514:  297. 
Gayles'  Heirs  v.  Williams,  7  La. 

162:  462,  B45. 
Gaylord  v.  Hubbard,  56  Ohio  St 

354,  391. 
Gazollo   v.   McCann,  03   Mo.   App. 

414:  525. 
Gearhart  v.  Dixon,  1  Pa.  St.  22 1 :  932. 
Geddes  v.  Brown,  5  Phila.  180:  907. 
Gedney  v.  Tewksbury,  3  Mass.  307: 

917. 
Gee  v.  Thompson,  11  La.  Ann.  657: 

063. 
Geebrick  v.  State,  5  Iowa,  491:   145, 

163. 
Geer  v.  Ouray  Co.  Com'rs,  97  Fed. 

435:  250,  455. 
(  tehrke  v.  Gehrke,  190  111.  166:  1306. 
Geiger  v.  Brown,  4  McCord,  423: 
1281. 
v.  Kobilka,  2G  Wash.  171:  757. 
Geisen  v.  Heidrich,  104  111.  537:  505. 
Gelpcke  v.  Dubuque,  1   Wall.  175: 

614,  015. 
General  v.  Forster,  10  Ves.  338:  896. 
General  Appro.  Bill,  In  re,  16  Colo. 

ral  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v. 
Chaplin,  183  Mass.  375:  1054,  1254. 
General  Trust  Co.  v.   Citizens'  St. 
Ry.  Co.,  80  Fed.  218:  397. 


Genkinger  v.    Commonwealth,  32 

Pa  St.  99:  555. 
Gentile  v.   State,  11  Ind.  224:  314. 
v.  State,  29  Ind.  409:  314,  339, 
951. 
George  v.  Board  of  Education,  33 
Ga  311:  754,  793. 
v.  Lillard,  106  Ky.  820:  511,  84G. 
Georgia  v.   Atkins,  1   Abb.  (U.  S.) 

22:  708,  748. 
Georgia  Southern  &  Fla.  R  R  Co. 

v.  George,  92  Ga,  700:  408. 
German   Am.   Bank  v.  Carondelet 
Real  Est.  Co.,  150  Mo.  570:  909, 
914. 
Germania  Sav.  Bank  v.  Darlington, 
50  S.  C.  337:  580. 
v.  Suspension  Bridge,  159  N.  Y. 
362:  1159. 
German  Savings  Bank  v.  Suspen- 
sion Bridge,  159  N.  Y.  362:  1220. 
German  S.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Ramish, 

138  Cal.  120;  846. 
Gerry   v.  Stoneham,  1  Allen,  319: 

642. 
Geter  *.  Com'rs,  1  Bay,  354:  1048. 
Gholston   v.  Gholston,  54  Ga.  285: 

1169. 
Giambonini,  Ex  parte,  117  Cal.  573: 

371. 
Gibbons  v.  Brittenum,  50  Miss.  232: 
480,  490,  513,  518,  541,  660, 
668. 
v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.   1:  39,  672, 
674. 
Gibbs  v.  Aldermen,  99  Ky.  490:  10. 
v.  Morgan,   39    N.   J.   Eq.  120: 

378. 
v.  Southern,  116  Mo.  204:  464. 
Giblin  v.  Jordan,  6  Cal.  416:  902. 
Gibson  v.   Ackerman,  70  I1L  App. 
899:  523. 
v.  Belcher,    1    Bush,    145:    252, 
581. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


XCVU 


Gibson  v.  Commonwealth,  87  Pa. 
St  253:  644 
v.  Hibbard,  13  Mich.  215:  550, 

1198. 
v.  Jenney,  15  Mass.   205:  472, 

862,  914. 
v.  Marquis,  29  Ala,  668:  1062, 

1294. 
v.  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  15  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  507:  1291. 
v.  Preston,  L  R.  5  Q.  B.  219: 

636. 
v.  State,  16  Fla.  291:  231,  452. 
v.  State,  38  Ga.  571:  645,  968. 
Giddings  v.  Cox,  31  Vt.  607:  516. 
Gieseke  v.  San  Joaquin,  109  Cal. 

489:  260. 
Gifford  v.  N.  J.  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Stodd. 

172:  186. 
Gihon,  Matter  of,  48  App.  Div.  598: 

857,  884. 
Gilbank  v.  Stephenson,  30  Wis.  157: 

519. 
Gilbert  v.  Ackerman,  159  N.  Y.  118: 
1283,  1284, 1285,  1287. 
v.   Columbia  T.  Co.,  3  Johns. 

Cas.  107:  1305. 
v.  Cook  Co.,  44  111.  App.  69:  527. 
v.  Dutruit,  91  Wis.  661:  702, 703, 

744,  981. 
v.  Flint,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  51  Mich. 

488:  873. 
v.  Georgia  R  R.  &  B.  Co.,  104 

Ga.  412:  434,  441. 
v.  Moline  Water  Power  Co.,  19 

Iowa,  319:  872. 
v.   Morgan,   18   D.   C.   Rep.   (7 

Mackey),  296:  468. 
v.  Morgan,  98  111.  App.  281:  693, 
706, 722. 
Gilbert-Arnold  L.  Co.  v.  Superior, 

91  Wis.  353:  595. 
Gilbert's  Assignment,  In  re,  94  Wis. 
108:  524. 


Gilchrist  v.  Strong,  167  Pa,  St.  628: 

535. 
Gildewell  v.  Martin,  51  Ark.  559: 

925. 
Gilfillan  v.  Hobart,  35  Minn.  185: 

1154. 
Gilhooly  v.  Elizabeth,  66  N.  J.  L. 

484:  156,  427. 
Gilkey  v.  Cook,  60  Wis.  133:  312, 

929,  1075. 
Gill  v.  Patton,  118  Iowa,  88:  1010, 

1012,  1232. 
Gilleland  v.  Schuyler,  9  Kan.  569: 

457,  551,  678,  681. 
Gillespie  v.  Allison,  115  N.  C.  542: 
1223. 
v.  White,   16  John.   117:    328, 
331. 
Gilliland  v.  Baptist  Church,  33  S. 
C.  164:  84,  94,  95. 
v.  Citadel  Sq.  Baptist  Church, 

33  S.  C.  164:  674. 
v.  Sellers,  2  Ohio  St.  223:  872. 
Gillitt  v.  McCarthy,  34  Minn.  318: 

215,  218,  221. 
Gillock  v.  People,  171  111.  307:  825, 

834,  835. 
Gilmau  v.  Philadelphia,  3  WalL  713 : 
631. 
v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y.  190:   19, 
1219. 
Gilmer  v.  Lime  Point,  19  Cal.  47: 

645,  1040,  1041. 
Gilmore  v.  Shuter,  2  Lev.  227:  1160. 
v.  State,  125  Ala.  59:  465,  497. 
Gilreath  v.  Greenville  Co.,  63  S.  C. 

75:  597,  598. 
Gilson  v.  Commissioners,  128  Ind. 

65:  353,  356,427. 
Ginn  v.  Com'rs,  11  Ohio  C.  C.  396: 

528. 
Gin  Webb  v.  Knight,  2  Q.  B.  D.  530: 

755. 
Girardeau  v.  Riley,  52  Mo.  424:  117. 


X0V111  TABLE   OF   OASES   OITED. 

The  referenoea  an  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1815. 


v.  Philadelphi  i 
Pa. 

Q6  v.  Allan.  1  B.  &  C.  61: 
1 1  VX 
Qirdner  v.  Stephens,  1  Heisk.  280: 

v.  Drakely,  2  Gill.  3;J0:  910. 
t  rittinga  v.  Crawford,  Taney's  Dec. 
1:    I 

i  v.  Simpson,  5  Me.  303:  1048, 

Gladney   v.   Deavors,    11    Ga.    79: 
937. 
v.  Sydnor,  172  Mo.   318:    1161, 
1165,  1217. 
Glass  v.  State,  30  Ala.  529:  778. 

ingtonv.  Rawlins,  3  East.  407: 

Glanbensklee  v.  Low,  29  111.  App 

:  784. 
Gleaton   v.   Gibson,   29  S.  C.  514: 

1164 
Gleason  v.  Spray,  81  CaL  217:  846, 

934. 
Glenn  v.  Garth,  147  U.  S.  360:  23, 
023. 
v.  Lopez,  1  Harper,  105:  910. 
v.  Lynn,  89  Ala.  608:  277. 
v.  Wray,  126  N.  C.  730:  92,  94. 
Glentz  v.  State,  38  Wis.  549:  443, 

445. 
Gliddon  v.  Strupler,  52  Pa.  St.  400: 

1142. 
Globe  Mill  Co.  v.  Bellingham  Bay 

Imp.  Co.,  10  Wash.  458:  1021. 
Globe  Pub.  Co.  v.  State  Bank,  41 

Neb.  175:  1225. 
Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  470:  862, 

L06L 
Goddard  v.  Boston,  20  Pick.  407: 
910. 
v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.   Ry.  Co., 

104  111.  App  526:  1041. 
v.  Gloninger,  5  Watts.  003:  890. 


Godfrey  v.   Douglas  Co.,  28  Ore. 

446:  1076. 
Goebelor  v.  Wilbelm,  17  Pa.  Supr. 

Ct.  432:  200,  299. 
Goenen  v.  Schroeder,  8  Minn.  387: 

1210. 
Goff  v.  Han  kins,  11  Ind.  App.  456: 

707. 
Gob  en  v.  Texas  Pac.  R  R   Co.,  2 

Woods.  346:  490,  637. 
Goillotel  v.   Mayor,  etc.,  87  N.  Y. 

441:  44a 
Golden  v.  Prince/3  Wash.  313:  1197. 
Golden  Canal  Co.  v.  Bright,  8  Colo. 

144:  221,  281. 
Goldsborough    v.    United    States, 

Taney's  Dec.  80:  888. 
Goldsmid    v.    Hampton,    5    C.    B. 

(N.  S.)  94:  655. 
Goldsmith  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co.,  62 
Ga.  485:  221. 
v.  Rome  R.  R  Co.,  62  Ga.  473: 

205. 
v.  Sawyer,  46  Cal.  209:  868,  869. 
Golonbieski  v.  State,  101  Wis.  333: 

482. 
Gompf  v.  Wolfinger,  67  Ohio  St 

144:  1220. 
Gonder  v.  Easta brook,  33  Pa.   St. 

374:  1279. 
Good  bub  v.  Hornung's  Estate,  127 

Ind.  181:  1169,  1257. 
Goode  v.  Webb,  52  Ala.  452:  327. 
Goodell  v.  Jackson,  20  John.  706: 

939. 
Goodell's  Case,  39  Wis.   232:   910, 

1312. 
Goodenow  v.  Buttrick,  7  Mass.  140: 

517. 
Gooding  v.  Morgan,  70  111.  275:  006. 
Goodman   v.    People,   90  111.  App. 

533:  903. 
Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  31  Wis.   127: 

443,  459,  460,  516,  545,  504. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


XC1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Goodon  v.  Tweedy,  74  Ala.  232:  876. 
Goodrich  v.  Russell,  42  N.  Y.  177: 

852. 
Goodsell  v.  Boynton,  2  111.  555:  308. 
Goodsell's   Appeal,   55  Conn.    171: 

1158,  1168. 
Goods  of  Ruddy,  L.  R.  2  P.  &  D. 

330:  1248. 
Goodson  v.  National  M.  A.  Ass'n,  91 
Mo.  App.  339:  727. 
v.  United  States,  7  Okl.  117:  42. 
Goodwin  v.  Appleton,  22  Me.  453: 
872,  879. 
v.  Morris,  9  Ore.  322:  610. 
Goody  Koontzv.  Acker,  19  Colo.  360: 

658,  1313. 
Gordon  v.  Cornes,  47  N.  Y.  617:  582, 
596. 
v.  Hobart,  2  Sumner,  401:  613. 
v.  Inghram,  1  Grant's  Cas.  152: 

19. 
v.  Moores,  61  Neb.  345;  415. 
v.  People.  44  Mich.  485:  442. 
v.  San  Diego,  101  Cal.  522:  1230. 
v.  State,  4  Kan.  489:  680. 
v.  Wansey,  19  Cal.  82:  1136. 
v.  Winchester  Building  Ass'n, 
12  Bush.  110:  1140. 
Gordon's  Ex'r  v.  Mayor,  5  GilL  231: 

1002. 
Gore  v.  Brazier,  3  Mass.  523:  914. 

v.  Clark,  37  S.  C.  537:  1076. 
Gorhara     v.    Bishop     of     Exeter, 
Moore's  Case  of,  462:  864, 
884,  886. 
v.  Bishop  of  Exeter,  15  Q.  B.  69, 

887,  895. 
v.  Luckett,  6  B.  Mon.  146:  460, 

475,  517,  638. 
v.  Springfield,  21  Me.  58:  312. 

313,  624. 
v.  Wing,  10  Mich.  486:  328,  332. 
■Gorley  v.  Louisville,  104  Ky.  372: 
391. 


Gorman  v.  Hammond,  28  Ga.  85: 
481,  482,  484. 
v.  McAidle,  67  Hun,  484 
v.  Pacific    R.   N.    Co.,   26   Mo. 
441:  643. 
Gormley  v.  Clark,  134  U.  S.  338:  613, 
616. 
v.  Taylor,  44  Ga.  76:  47. 
Gorton  v.  Champneys,  1  Bing.  287: 

990,  1246. 
Goshen  v.  Stonington,  4  Conn.  225: 

576,  1158. 
Goshom  v.Purcell,  11  Ohio  St.  641: 

641,  1229. 
Gosling    v.   Veley,    12    Q.   B.   407: 

999. 
Goss  v.  Cahill,  42  Barb.  310:  1062, 
1243. 
v.  Goss,  29  Ga.  109:  944, 
Gossler  v.  Goodrich,  3  Cliff.  71:  459. 
Gough  v.  Dorsey,  27  Wis.  119:  684, 
1051. 
v.  Pratt,  9  Md.  526:  610,  683. 
Gould  v.  Wise,  18  Nev.  253:  931. 
Governor  v.  Allen,  8  Hump.   176: 
1134. 
v.  Howard,  1  Murphy  (N.  C), 

465:  554,  678. 
v.  McEwen,  5  Hump.  241:  12. 
v.  Porter,  5  Hump.  165:  635,  613, 

6S3. 
v.  Roby,  34  Ga.  176:  934. 
Governor's  Proc,  In  re,  19  Colo.  333: 

112. 
Governor,  The,  23  Mo.  353;  867. 
Gover's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Div.  198: 

704. 
Gowen  v.  Coulow,  51  Minn.  213:  511. 
Grace  v.  Donovan,  12  Minn.  580: 

558,  681. 
Graff  v.  Evans,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  Div. 

377:  964. 
Graffins  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Pen. 
&  W.  502:  932. 


TABLE   OF   casi:s   01  rED. 


The  references  an  to  the  pages:  Vol.  T.  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


Graham,  Ex  parte,  l8Rioh.277:B47, 

11  CO. 
Graham  v.  Bradbury,  7  Mo.  281: 
1 04ft 

v.  Charlotte,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  64 

N.  C.  681:  797. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  58 

Wis.  178:  548,  556. 
v.  Long,  0.-)  Pa.  St.  883:  1142. 
v.  Muskegon    Co.     Clerk,    116 

Mioh.  571:  518.  519,  579. 
v.  Strett.  92  Term.  673:  1076. 
v.  Van  Wyck,  14  Barb.  531:  862, 
981. 
Grammar  School  v.  Burt,  11   Vt. 

119a 
Gran  v.  Houston,  45  Neb.  813: 1268. 
Grand  Island  B.  Co.  v.  Wright,  53 

Neb.  574:  1294 

Grand  feland  &  Wyo.  Cent.  R  R. 

Co.  v.  Swin bank,  51  Neb.  521:  434. 

Grand  Isle  v.  Milton,  68  Vt.  234:  574. 

Grand  Lodge  v.  New  Orleans,  166 

U.  S.  14$:  1216. 
Grand  Rapids  v.  Burlingame,  102 
Mich.  321:  301. 
v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
130  Mich.  238:  1221. 
Grand  Rapids  Chair  Co.  v.  Runnels, 

77  Mich.  104:  420. 
Grand  Rapids  Electric  Light,  etc. 
Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.  Co.,  33 
Fed.  659:  1023,  1029. 
( Irani    River   B.  Co.   v.  Jarvis,  30 

Mich.  308:  928. 
Granger,  In  re,  56  Neb.  260:  72,  78, 

Grant  v.  Alpena,  107  Mich.  335:  324. 
v.  Cole,  23  Wash.  542:  304. 
v.  Courter,  24  Barb.  242:  170. 
v.  Grant,  12  S.  C.  29:  55a 
v.  Leach,  20  La.  Ann.  329: 1022. 
v.  State.  33  Tex.  Crirn.  Rep.  527: 
772. 


Grant  County  v.  Sels,  5  Ore,  243: 

463. 
Graves  v.  Ashford,  L  R.  2  C.  P.  410: 
956. 
v.  Keaton,  3  Cold.  8:  606,  868. 
v.  Mo  Williams,  1  Pin.  491:  345. 
v.  Otis,  2  Hill,  466:  1061. 
v.  Seattle,  8  Wash.  248:  954. 
v.  Wood,  87  Mo.  App.  92:  1164, 
1220,  1295. 
Gravett  v.  State.  74  Ga.  191:  730. 
Gray  v.  Bennett,  3  Mete.  522:  992. 
v.  County  Com'rs,  83  Me.  429: 

739,  797,  800,  846. 
v.  Gray,  34  Ga.  499:  908. 
v.  Hook,  4  N.  Y.  449:  938. 
v.  La  Fayette  Co.,  65  Wis.  567: 

1004. 
v.    Larrimore.   2   Abb.   (U.   S.) 

542:  1050. 
v.  Matheny,  66  Ark.  36:  578. 
v.  Nations,  1  Ark.  557: 1061. 
v.  Obear.  54  Ga.  231:  573. 
v.  Reg.  11  CI.  &T.  427:  933. 
v.  Telegraph  Co.,  108  Tenn.  39: 
952. 
Great  Central  Gas  C.  Co.  v.  Clarke, 

11  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  814:  471. 
Great    Central    Gas  Cons.   Co.  v. 
Clarke,  13  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  838: 
533. 
Greaton  v.  Griffin,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

S.)  310:  202,  204. 
Great  Western  Ry.  Co.  v. Swindon, 

L.  R.  9  App.  Cas.  808:  812,  817. 
Greb  v.  Cushman,  45  111.  119:  99. 
Grebble  v.  Wilson.  101  Tenn.  612: 

579. 
Greeley  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

123  Mo.  157:  885. 
Greeley,   S.  L.  &  P.  R  R  Co.  t. 

Harris,  12  Colo.  226:  1255. 
Greely  &  Salt  Lake  &  Pac.  R  R. 
Co.  v.   Harris,  12  Colo.  226:  644. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CI 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Green,  In  re,  40  Mo.  App.  491:  1306. 
Green  v.   Abraham,  43  Ark.  420: 

1229,  1233. 
v.  Anderson,  39  Miss.  359:  1159, 

1162,  1225. 
v.  Baxter,  91  Mo.  App.  633:  847, 

1260. 
v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  1:  643, 1190, 

1192,  1196,  1200. 
v.  Briggs,  1  Curtis,  311:  13. 
v.  Cheek,  5  Ind.  105:  660,  701, 

732. 
v.    Commonwealth,   12   Allen, 

155:  845,  1102. 
v.  Commonwealth,  95  Ky.  233: 

386. 
v.  Dikeman,  18  Barb.  535: 1168. 
v.  Fresno  County,  95  Cal.  329: 

130,  177. 
v.  Goodall,  1  Cold.  404:  868. 
v.  Graves,  1  Doug.  (Mich.)  351: 

72,  910. 
v.  Houston,  45  Nev.  813:  711, 

885. 
v.  Hudson  Riv.  R  R.  Co.,  32 

Barb.  25:  1291. 
v.  Lord  Penzance,  L.  R.  6  App. 

Cas.  675:  1058. 
v.  Mayor,  etc.,  2  Hilt.  203:  948. 
v.  Mayor,  etc.,  R.    M.  Charlt. 

368:  204. 
v.   Neal,  6  Pet.  291:  616,   621, 

898,  901. 
v.  Rugely,  23  Tex.  539:  611. 
v.  State,  59  Md.  123:  662,  693, 

709. 
v.  United  States,  9  Wall.  655: 

932. 
v.  Van   Buskirk,  7  Wall.  139: 

866. 
v.  Weller,  32  Miss.  650:  50,  58, 

609,  662,  665,  699,   747,  753, 

867. 
v.  Wood,  7  Q.B.  178:  756,  1110. 


Greencastle    Southern    T.    Co.    v. 

State,  28  Ind.  382:  432,  899. 
Greencastle  Township  v.  Black,  5 

Ind.  566:  123. 
Green   City   v.   Holsinger,  76  Ma 

App.  567:  1031. 
Greene,  Ex  parte,  29  Ala.  52:  104a 
Greene,  Matter  of,  55  App.  Div.  475: 

252. 
Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  550: 

1210. 
Greenfield   Ave.,  191   Pa.  St.  290: 

455,  694,  788. 
Greenhow  v.  James,  8  Va.  636:  663, 

909,  1072. 
Greenlaw  v.  Greenlaw,  12  N.  H. 

200:  1226. 
Greenlee  v.  Eisenbrown,  10  Pa.  Co. 

Ct.  483:  562. 
Greenough  v.  Greenough,  1  Jones, 
494:  14. 
v.  Greenough,  11  Pa.  St.  489: 
19,  635,  1051,  1217,  1233. 
Greensboro  v.  McAdoo,  112  N.  C 

359:  473,  503,1012. 
Green's  Estate,  4  Md.  Ch.  349:  1021, 

1022, 1055. 
Greenville  v.  .Townes,  93  Ky.  597: 

733. 
Greenville,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Cath- 

cart,  4  Rich.  89:  1057. 
Greenville  Ice  &  C.  Co.  v.  Green- 
ville, 69  Miss.  86:  815,  826, 1003. 
Greenville    Nat.    Bank   v.    Evans- 

Snyder-Buell  Co.,  9  Okl.  353:  21, 

22,  623. 
Green  wade  v.  Green  wade,  3  Dana, 

495:  612. 
Greenwood  v.  Greenwood,  28  Md. 
370:  863. 
v.  Gruelich,  175  111.  526:  706. 
Greenwood  Cem.  L.  Co.  v.  Routt, 

17  Colo.  156:  5. 
Greer,  In  re,  58  Kan.  268:  283,  33a 


TABL1     0]     I IAS1  9    I  I  ill  »- 


Tho  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp,  1-408;  Vol.  n,  pp. 


v.   A-sheville,  111  N.  C.  G78: 

in:,  lr. -j.  lr^'.'.  nea 

ill  Ma  1 15:  814 
v.  Rowley,    1     Pittsburgh,    1: 

1102. 

v.  State.  51  Miss.  378:  123. 

32  Ter.  588:  485,  555. 
Baylies,  ID  Iowa.  43:  429. 
v.  German  Bank,  3  Colo. 
5 1 5. 

ry's  Taso.  6  Rep.  106:  661,  671. 
Greig  v.  Beudeno,  El.  Bl.  &  El.  133: 

■  Br  v.  Klein.  28  Mich.  17:  784. 
m1;;  Co.  Supervisors  v.  Brog- 
den,  112  U.  S.  261:  909,  1072. 
.    v.  Dover,  62  N.  J.  L,  40:  379, 

v.  Mobile    Trade   Co.,   55  Ala. 

548,  556. 
v.  Newark  Plank  Road  Co.,  65 

N.  J.  L.  01:  427:  1035. 
v.  Union,  67  N.  J.  L.  363:  392. 
Grider  v.  Tally,  77  Ala.  422:  880. 
Griebel  v.  State,  111  Ind.  369:  566. 
Gner  v.  State,  103  Ga,  428:  778,781, 

815,  826,  857. 
firiffen,   Ex  parte,  88  Tenn.  547: 

GrifTen  v.  Henry,  99  111.  App.  284: 

1008,  1060. 
Griffin,  In  re,  25  Tex.  (Sup. 'It.)  623: 

927. 
Griffin  v.   Cunningham,  20  Gratt. 
31:  19,  343. 
v.  Evans,  114  Ga.  65:  341. 
v.  Forrest,  19  Mich.  309:  327. 
v.  Leslie,  20  Md.  15:  124!),  1251. 
v.  State,  39  Ala  541:  555. 
Griffing  v.  Gibb,  2  Black,  519:  613. 
Griffin's   Case,   Chase's   Dec.    364: 

BBth   v.   Beasly,    10  Yerg.   434: 
610, 


Griffith  v.  Carter,  8   Kan.  565:  845. 

v.  Wells.  3  Penio,  226:  988 
Grigsby  v.  Barr,  li  Bush,  330:  460. 

v.  Peak,  57  Tex.  112:  19. 
Grimes  v.  Eddy,   126  Mo.  108:  576, 
585,  606,  985. 
v.  N.  W.   Legion  of  Honor,  97 

Iowa,  315:  703,  707. 
v.  Reynolds,  94  Mo.  App.  576: 
1295. 
Grinad  v.  State,  34  Ga.  270:  312. 
Griner,  In  re,  16  Wis,  423:  148. 
Gr  is  wold  v.  Nichols,  111  Wia  344: 
685. 
v.  Pitcairn,  2  Conn.  85:  868. 
Groat  v.  Johnson,  73  Vt.  268:  1232. 
Grob  v.  Cushman,  45  I1L  119:  98, 

609,  882. 
Groesch  v.  State,  42  Ind.  547:  171, 

172.  356. 
Groff,  In  re,  21   Neb.  647:  577,  578. 
Groff  v.  Miller,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

353:  511,  514,  730,  733. 
Grogan  v.  San  Francisco,  18  Cal. 

590:  1192. 
Grooms   v.'Hannon,  59  Ala.  510: 

965,  967.  987. 
Gross  v.  Fowler,  21  Cal.  392:  717. 
Grossman  v.  Hancock,  58  N.  J.  L. 

139:  289. 
Grosvenor  v.  Duffy,  121  Mich.  220: 
293. 
v.  Magill,  37  111.  239:  320,  321. 
Grove  v.  Leidy,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  272: 

424. 
Grover  v.  Fox,  36  Mich.  453:  1047. 
v.  Trustees,  45  N.  J.  L.  399:  194, 
195,  199,  202,  203,  204. 
Grubbe  v.  Grubbe,26  Ore.  363:  924, 

925,  1295. 
Grubbs  v.  State,  24  Ind.   295:  185, 

252.  901. 
Grubb's  Appeal,   174   Pa.  St.    187: 
303. 


TABLE    OF    OASES    CITED. 


cm 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Grumley  v.  Webb,  44  Mo.  444:  823, 

1010. 
Guarantee  Trust  Co.  v.  Laughlin, 

2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  591:  781. 
Guaranty  Savings  &  L.  Ass'n  v. 

Ascherman,  108  Iowa,  150:  300. 
Guaranty  Trust  Co.  v.  Troy  Steel 

Co.,  33  Misc.  484:  443. 
Guaranty  T.  &  S.  D.  Co.  v.  Bud- 

dington,  27  Fla.  215:  1303. 
Guerard  v.   Polhill,  R  M.  Charlt. 

237:  917. 
Guerney  v.  Moore,  131  Mo.  650:  988. 
Guggenheim  Smelting  Co.,  In  re, 

121  Fed.  153:  781. 
Guidry  v.  Rees,  7  La.  278:  1158. 
Guild  v.  Chicago,  82111.  472:  164. 
v.  Rogers,  8  Barb.  502:  1210. 
Guilford  v.  Cornell,  18  Barb.  615: 
1194.  • 
v.  Supervisors,  13  N.  Y.  143:20, 
1194. 
Guilleaume  v.  Miller,  14  Rich.  118: 

1030. 
Gulf,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Barnett,  19 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  626:  1020. 
v.  Ellis,  87  Tex.  19:  420. 
v.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  150:  414. 
v.  Levy,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R 

Cas.  90:  1292. 
v.  Lott,  2  Tex.  Ct.  A  pp.  48:  555. 
Gulick   v.   Loder,  13  N.  J.  L.  68: 

1211. 
Gull  Riv.  L.  Co.  v.  Lee,  7  N.  D.  135: 

524,  546. 
Gunder   v.   Wyoming  Co.,  12  Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  78:  279. 
Gundling  v.  Chicago,  176  111.  340: 

814. 
Gunn,  In  re,  50  Kan.  155:  47. 
Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610:  640, 

1204. 
Gunnestad  v.  Price,  L  R  10  Ex. 
69:814. 


Gunning  v.  People,  86  111.  A  pp.  174: 

758. 
Gunnison   Co.  Com'rs  v.  Owen,  7 

Colo.  467:  577. 
Gunter  v.  Leckey,  30  Ala.  591:  645, 
862,  968,  1014. 
v.  Tex.   L.  &  M.   Co.,  82  Tex. 
496:  227,  240. 
Gurr  v.  Scudds,  11  Ex.  190:  998. 
Gustavel  v.  State,    153  Ind.  613: 

300,  736. 
Gusthal    v.   Strong,   23  App.  Div. 

315:  323,  707,  717,  731,  740,  798. 
Gut  v.  State,  9  Wall.  35:  614,  1181. 
Guthrie  v.  Converse  Co.,  7  Wyo.  95: 
407. 
v.  Fisk,  3  B.  &.  C.  182:  1076, 
1084. 
Guthrie  Daily  Leader  v.  Cameron, 

3  Okl.  677:  427. 
Guthrie  National  Bank  v.  Guthrie, 

173  U.  S.  528:  339. 
Gutienez,   Ex  parte,  45  Cal.    429: 

1185. 
Gwinner  v.  Lehigh,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 

55  Pa.  St.  126:  490. 
Gwyn  v.  Hardwicke,  1  H.  &  N.  53: 

888. 
Gwynne  v.  Burnell,  6  Bing.  N.  C. 
559:  630,  704,  705. 
v.  Burnell,  7  CI.  &  F.  696:  1109. 
Gyger's  Estate,  65  Pa.  St.  311:  689, 
794,  811,  812. 

H. 

Haas  v.  Shaw,  91  Ind.  384:  1296. 
Hackett    v.   Smelsley,  77  111.  109: 

1265,  1266,  1268,  1269. 
Hackley  v.  Sprague,  10  Wend.  114: 

1162. 
Hadden  v.  Collector,  5  Wall.  107: 

630,  648,  649,  651,  697,  1071. 
Hadley  v.  Bernero,  97  Mo.  App.  314: 

775. 


eiv 


TAB]  E    OF   OASES  OITED. 


Tiit<  referenoea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  i.  pp.  I  008;  VoL  n.  pp  ft 


Badley  v.  Peabody,  13  Gray,  200: 

iioa 

v.  Perks,  L  K.  1Q.  E  467:  777, 

Hagerman   v.  Ohio  Bldg.  Co.,  25 

Ohio  St.  L86:  884, 
Bagerstown  v.  Sehuer,  37  Md.  180: 

Baggerty  v.  St  Louis  Ice,  etc.  Co., 

Mo.  338:  1297. 
Baggett  v.  Hurley,  91  Me.  542:  1200. 
.  r  v.  Hall,   10  App.  Div.  581: 
1232. 
Hahn  v.  Salmon,  20  Fed.  Rep.  801: 
090. 
v.  United  States,  14  Ct.  CI.  305: 

890. 
v.  United  States,  107  U.  S 

Haigh  v.  Sheffield,  L  R.   10  Q.  B. 

102:  837. 
Haight  v.  Cay.  8  Cal  297:  1054 
v.  Holley.  3  Wend.  258:  93a 
Haines  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs,  99  Mich. 

32:  1159. 
Hakes  v.  Peck,  30  How.  Pr.  104: 

930. 
Halbert  v.  Skyles,  1  A.  K.  Marsh. 

309:  024. 
Haldane  v.  Beauclerk,  3  Ex.  658: 

77-'. 
Halderman  v.  Young,  107  Pa.  St. 

912. 
Hale  v.  Angel,  20  John.  342:  615. 
v.  McGeltijan,  114  Cal.  112:  112, 

118,  133,  409,  600,  928. 
v.  1ST.  J.  St.  Nav.  Co.,   15  Conn. 

:  620,622, 
v.  Stenger,  22  Wash.  518:  1161, 
1191. 
Hales  v.  Owen.  2  Salk.  625:  336. 
Haley  v.    Jump   River  L.  Co.,  81 
Wis.  412:  470. 
v.  Petty,  42  Ark.  392:  1136. 


Baley  r.  Philadelphia,  68  Pa.  St  45: 
64a 
y.  Young,  184  Mass.  304:  335 
Ball,  Ex  parte,  1  Pick.  261:  748. 
Hall   v.  Banks,   79  Wis.   229:  1160, 
1161,  1192. 
v.  Bray,  51  Mo.  288:  339. 
v.  Burlingame,   88   Mich.   438: 

301,  428. 
v.  Byrne,  1  Scam.  140:  S32. 
v.  Cassidy,  25  Miss.  48:  327, 328, 

331. 
v.  Craig,  125  Ind.  523:  435. 
v.  Goodwyn,  4  McCord,  442:  19. 
v.  Leland,  64  Minn.  71:  240. 
v.  Newcomb,  3  Hill,  233:  901. 
v.  Newcomb,  7  Hill,  416:  901. 
v.  Norfolk  &  W.  R.  R,  Co.,  44 

W.  Va.  36:  964. 
v.  Perry,   72  Mich.    202:    1159, 

1166. 
v.  Pillow,  31  Ark.  32:  611. 
v.  Schoenecke,    128     Mo.    661: 

1130,  1290. 
v.  State,  29  Fla.  79:  1190,  1208. 
v.  State,  39  Fla.  637:  661. 
v.  State,  20  Ohio,  7:   645,  819, 

964,  965,  966. 
v.  St.  Paul,  56  Minn.  428:  772. 
v.  Wisconsin,  103  U.  S.  5:  1192. 
v.  Woodson,  13  Mo.  462:  611. 
Halleman  v.  Halleman,  65  Ga.  476: 

221. 
Hallet  v.  Novion,  14  John.  273:  938. 
Hallock  v.  Hollingshead,  49  N.  J.  L. 

64:  402. 
Halloran   v.  T.,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  40 

Tex.  465:  1217.  1219. 
Halpin  v.  Prosperity  L.  &  B.  Ass'n, 

108  111.  App.  316:  1158.  1165. 
Balvenstine  v.  Yantis.  88  Ky.  695: 

230. 
Ham  v.  Board  of  Police,  142  Mass. 
90:  932. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-TO3;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Ham  v.  Ham,  39  Me.  263:  872. 
v.  McClaws,  1  Bay.  92:  911. 
v.  Sawyer,  38  Me.  37:  888. 
v.  State,  7  Blackf.  314:  457. 
v.  Steamboat  Hamburg,  2  Iowa, 
4G0,  638,  922. 
Haman  v.  McNamara,  77  Mo.  App. 

1:  797. 
Hamilton  v.  Buxton,  6  Ark.  24:  668. 
v.  Carroll,  82  Md.  326:  171,  301. 
v.  McNeil,  13  Gratt.  394:  887. 
v.  Rathbone,  175  U.  S.  414:  703, 

779,  855. 
v.  Smith,  3  Murphy,  115:  1282. 
v.  Steamer  R.  B.  Hamilton.  16 
Ohio  St.  428:  688,  689. 
Hamilton  G.  L.  &  C.  Co.  v.  Hamil- 
ton City,  146  U.  S.  258:  1195. 
Hamlet  v.Taylor,  5  Jones  L.  36:  311. 
Hamlyn  v.  Nesbit,  37  Ind.  284:  462. 
.  Hamman  v.  Central  C.  &  C.  Co., 

156  Ma  232:  429. 
Hammer  v.  State,  44  N.  J.  L.  667: 

369,  402,  423. 
Hammer  Smith,  etc.    Ry.   Co.   v. 
Brand,  L.  R.  4  H.  L.  Cas.  171 :  692. 
Hammock  v.  Loan  &  T.  Co.,  105  U. 

S.  77:  688,  689. 
Hammond  v.  Am.  Ins.  Co.,  10  Gray, 
306:  337. 
v.  Haines,  25  Md.  541:  171. 
v.  Lesseps,  31  La.  Ann.  337:  205. 
v.  Webb,  10  Md.  281:   1063. 
Hampe  v.  Traction  Co.  165  Pa.  St. 

468:  469. 
Hampton  v.  Commonwealth,  19  Pa. 

St.  329:  545.  551,  1169. 
Hanchett  v.  Weber,  17  111.  App.  114: 

933. 
Hancock  v.  District  Tp.,  78  Iowa, 
550:  445,  524,  846. 
v.  State,  114  Ga.  439:  256,  582. 
Hancock  Nat'l   Bank   v.  Farnum, 
20  R.  L  466:  24,  988. 


Hand  v.  Cole,  88  Tenn.  400:  763, 

1059,  1072. 

v.  Fellows,  148  Pa.  St.  456:  502. 

v.  Stapleton,  135  Ala.  156:  158, 

514,  668. 

Handley  v.  Cunningham,  12  Bush. 

402:  329. 
Hand  ley's  Estate,  In  re,  15  Utah, 

212:  684,  1065. 
Handy  v.  Hopkins,  59  Md.  157:  945. 
Haney  v.  Bartow  Co.  Com'rs,  91  Ga. 
770:  173. 
v.  State,  34  Ark.  263:  705,  797, 
910. 
Hanger  v.  Abbott,  6  Wall.  532:  456. 
Hankins  v.  People,  106  111.  628:  687, 

918,  984. 
Hanks  v.  Brown,  79  Iowa,  560:  965 
Hanleyv.  Donoghue,  116  IT.  S.  1: 
613,  866. 
v.  Sixteen  Horses,  97  Cal.  182: 
517. 
Hanlon  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  53  Ind. 
123:  357,  368. 
v.  Partridge,  69  N.  H.  88:  573. 
Hanmann  v.  Mink,  99  Ind.  279:  872. 
Hannan  v.  Greenfield,  36  Ore.  97: 

1145. 
Hannibal,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Packet 

Co.,  125  U.  S.  260:  1021. 
Hannover  Borough's   Appeal,  150 

Pa.  St.  202:  466,  502. 
Hannover  Nat.  Bank   v.  Johnson, 

90  Ala.  549:  1227. 
Hannum  v.  Bank  of  Tenn.,  1  Cold. 
398:  641. 
v.  Turtellott,  10  Allen,  494:  336. 
Hanrick   v.    Andrews,  9    Port.   9: 

619,  621. 
Hanscom   v.  Meyer,   61    Neb.  798: 

547,  1221. 
Hanson  v.  Dunn,  76  Wis.  455:  1145. 
Happel  v.   Brethauer,  70  111.  166: 
78,  82,  608. 


i-vi 


l  aim  .1 :   OF   0A8ES    01  l  ED. 


a  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  I  808;  Vol.  n.  pp.  (I 


Barbeok  v.  May<  r,  10  Boa  386:  458. 
Barber,  Com'rs  v.  Excelsior  Eted- 

.  88  Cal.  491:  161. 
Barbord   v.   Perigal,  5  T.  R.  010: 

Bardaway  v.  Lilly  iTenn.),  48  S. 

W.  718:  940,  1107. 
Bard  man  v.  Downer,  39  Ga,  425: 

Bardenburgh   v.   Lakin,   47  N.  Y. 

100:   1280,  1281. 
Hardin   v.  Trimmier.  27  N.  C.  110: 

lin  Co.  v.  MoFarlan,  62  111.  133: 
1045. 
Harding  v.   Bader,  75  Mich.  316: 
1009. 
v.  People,  160  111.  459:  419. 
v.  Strong,  42  111.149:  867. 
Bar  '  g  v.  Cravens,  14S  lnd. 

1:  I 
Bardmann  v.  Eowen,  39  N.  Y.  196: 

1144. 

Bardy,  Ex  parte.  08  Ala.  303:  893. 

Bardy  v.  Bever,  5  T.  R.  636:  1149. 

v.  Gage.  66  N.  H.  552:  1170. 

v.  Heard,  15  Ark.  184:  1134. 

v.  Kingman  Co.,  65  Kan.  Ill: 

278,  579. 
v.  Ryle,  9  Barn.  &  C.  603:  327, 
329. 
Bare  v.  Hare,  10  Tex.  355:  1220. 
Harford  v.  United  States,  8  Cranch. 

109:  406. 
Bargrave   v.  Weber,  66   Mich.  59: 

Baritwen  v.  The  Louis  Olsen,  52 

Fel.  652:  525. 
Barker  v.  Addis,  4  Pa.  St.  515:  335. 

v.  Barker,  3  Harr.  51:  1061. 
Harlan  v.  Sigler.  Morris,  39:  577. 

v.  State.  41  Miss.  506:  37. 
Barland  v.  Territory,  3  Wash.  Ter. 
181:  241 


Barlingan  v.  Doyle.  131  Cal. 

487. 
Barmon  v.  Chicago,  140  III.  374: 

133. 
Harold  v.  State,  16  Tex.  App  157: 

518. 
Barpending  v.  Dutch   Church,  16 
Pet.  493:  614,  615. 
v.  Haight,  39  Cal.  189:  925. 
Harper  v.  Mangel,  98  I1L  App.  526: 
1311. 
v.  State,  109  Ala.  28:  295.  433, 
436,  580,  5S2,  603,  651,  795, 
796. 
v.  State,  109  Ala.  66:  295,  433, 
436,  580.  581. 
Harrell  v.  Harrell,  8  Fla,  46:  444, 

659.  854. 
Harriet,  The  Schooner,  1  Story,  251: 

963.  965,  982. 
Harrington  v.  DuChatel,  1  Bro.  C. 
C.  124:  1105. 
v.  Galveston,  1  Tex.  Ct.  App. 

437:  470. 
v.  Glidden,  179  Mass,  486:  917, 

1310. 
v.  Harrington's  Est.,  53  Vt.  619: 

541. 
v.    MoKillop,    132   Mass.    507: 

1271. 
v.  People,  6  Barb.  607:  1137. 
v.  Rochester,  10 Wend.  547:  460, 

541,  668. 
v.  Smith,  28  Wis.  43:  684,  781. 
v.  Wands,  23  Mich.  385:  447. 
Harriott  v.  Potter,  115  Iowa,  648: 

1166. 
Harris  v.  Allnutt,  12  La.  465:  611. 
v.  Ansonia,  73  Conn.  359:  1236. 
v.  Fond  du  Lac,  101  Wis,  44: 

529. 
v.  Gest,  4  Ohio  St.  469:  1136. 
v.  Glenn.  56  Ga.  94:  643. 
v.  Barsch,  29  Ore.  562:  1215. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  C35-1315. 


Harris  v.  Jenns,  9  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  152: 

512. 
v.  People,  59  N.  Y.  599:  186, 194, 

203,  265. 
v.  Register,  70  Md.  109:  1068. 
v.  Runnells,  12  How.  79:  938. 
v.  Rutledge,  19  Iowa,  3S8:   550. 
v.  Saunders,  4  B.  &  C.  411:  1282. 
v.  State,  110  Ga.  887:  201. 
v.  State,  114  Ga.  436:  341,  592. 
v.  State,  96  Tenn.  496:  847,  848. 
v.  Supervisors,  33  Hun,  279: 562, 

564,  581. 
v.  Townshend,  56  Vt.  716:  549, 

556,  558,  678,  682. 
v.  Vanderveer,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  424: 

1054. 
v.  White,  81  N.  Y.  532:  618. 
Harrisburg  v.  Sheck,  104  Pa.  St.  53: 

528. 
Harris  County  v.  Stewart,  91  Tex. 

133:  137. 
Harrison,  Ex  parte,  4  Cow.  63:  659, 

708,  712. 
Harrison  v.  Allen,  Wythe  (Va.),  291 : 

554. 
v.  Board  of  Suprs.,  117  Mich. 

215:  525,  532. 
v.  Gordy,  57  Ala.  49:  83,  86. 
v.  Harrison,  20  Ala,  629:  23. 
v.  Harrison,  39  Ala.  439:  1282. 
v.  Hill,  37  111.  App.  30:  785. 
v.  James,  2  Chitty,  547:  1097. 
v.  Leach,  4  W.   Va.    383:    644, 

1015. 
v.  Masonic  Mut.  Ben.  Soc,  61 

Kan.  134:  731,  732,  889. 
v.  People,  191  111.  257:  693,  710. 
v.  People,  92  111.  App.  643:  706, 

710,  914,  933. 
v.  People,  97  111.  App.  421 :  889. 
v.  Sager,  27  Mich.  476:  335,  336, 

784. 
v.  Smith,  2  Colo.  625:  1222. 

Jl 


Harrison  v.  Southwark  &  V.  Water 
Co.  (1891),  2  Ch.  409:  943. 
v.  State,  102  Ala.  170:  749. 
v.  Walker,  1  Ga.  32:  462,  562, 

853. 
v.  Willis,  7  Heisk.  35:  887. 
v.  Wissler,  98  Va.  597:  1154. 
v.  Young,  9  Ga.  359:  931,  1022, 
1026,  1038. 
Hart  v.  Bodley,  Hardin,  98:  872. 
v.  Boatwick,  14  Fla.  180:  1287. 
v.  Kennedy,  14  Abb.   Pr.  432: 

795. 
v.  Kennedy,  15  Abb.  Pr.  290: 

795,  813. 
v.  Leete,  104  Mo.  315:  1295. 
v.  Reynolds,  3  Cow.  42:  1127. 
v.  Reynolds,  1  Heisk.  208:  684. 
v.  State,  40  Ala.  32:  640,  1180. 
v.  State,  88  Ga.  635:  497. 
v.  State,  113  Ga  939:  208,  441. 
v.  State,  55  Ind.  591:  872,879. 
v.  State,  159  Ind.  182:  135. 
v.  Walker,  31  Mo.  26:  327,  331. 
Hartford  v.  Hartford  Theological 
Seminary,  66  Conn.  475:  534,  693, 
1003. 
Hartford  Bridge  Co.  v.  Union  Ferry 

Co.,  29  Conn.  210:  927,  1033. 
Hartford,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  65 

How.  Pr.  133:  1042. 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Owen,  30 
Mich.  441:  1050. 
v.  Peoria,  156  111.  420:  468. 
v.    Raymond,    70    Mich.    485: 

230. 
v.  Warbritton,  66  Kan.  93:  419. 
Hartley  v.  Hooker,  2  Cowp.  523: 

1053. 
Hartman  v.  Greenhow,  102  U.  S. 

672:  1192. 
Hartung  v.  People,  22  N.  Y.  95:  552, 
556,  1168. 
v.  People,  26  N.  Y.  167:  1178. 


I'vni 


TA15LK    OF    CASKS    CITED. 


Tho  refervnoea  ore  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1316. 


Harvey  v.  Aurora  ft  G.  R  R.  Co., 
171  111.  805:  1011. 
v.  Clarinda,  111  Iowa,  528:  G85, 

1064. 
v.  Travelers'  Ins.  Co..  18  Colo. 

:  781,  800. 
v.  Tyler,  0  Wall.  328:  641. 
Harwell  v.  Steel,  IT  Ala.  370:  128a 
Harwood  v.  Wentworth,  162  U.  S. 

Hasbrouok  v.  Shipman.lCWis.  296: 

1007. 
Hascall  v,  Madison  University,  8 

Barb.  171:  1111. 
Haseltine  v.  Central  Nat  Bank,  155 
Mo.  66:  39. 
v.  Hewitt,  61  Wis.  121:  912. 
Haskel  v.  Burlington,  30  Iowa,  232: 

392. 
Haskell,  Ex  parte,  112  Cal.  412: 189. 
Hasketh  v.  Lee,  2  Saund.  84:  628. 

v.  Maxey,  134  Ind.  182:  907. 
Hassenplug's  Appeal,  106  Pa.   St. 

527:  611,  1252. 
Hastings  v.  Aiken,  1  Gray,  163:  562. 
Hatch  v.  Burrows,  1  Woods,  439: 
37. 
v.  Calhoun  Circuit  Judge,  127 
Mich.  174:  444. 
Hatchett  v.  Billingslea,  65  Ala.  16: 

517. 
Hatfield  v.  Commonwealth,  120  Pa. 

857. 
Hatfield  Tp.  Road,  4  Yeates,  392: 

!  [athaway  v.  Johnson,  55  N.  Y.  93: 

640. 
v.  McDonald,  27  Wash.  659:  230. 
v.  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.,  99  Fed. 

■..  n,6ia 

Hatton  v.  Wier,  19  Ala  127:  1062, 
1294. 
v.  Wilmington  City  Ry.  Co.,  3 
Penn.    Del.)  159:  1295. 


Ilatzung  v.  Syracuse,  92  Hun,  203: 

\s.v.\ 
llaiu-nsteine  v.  Lynham,  28  Gratt. 

62:  1220. 
Haven  v.  Foster,  0  Pick.  112;  1282. 
Haverly  v.  State,  63  Neb.  83:  267, 

432. 
Hawaii  v.  Mankichi,  190  U.  S.  197: 

575,  694,  730. 
Hawes  v.  Clement,  64  Wis.  152: 1049. 
v.  Fliegler,  87  Minn.  319:  514, 
525,  526,  745. 
Ilawke  v.  Dunn,  (1897)  1.  Q  B.  579: 

834. 
Hawker  v.  New  York,  170  U.  S.  189: 

427. 
Hawkins  v.  Barney's  Lessee,  5  Pet. 
457:  1192. 
v.  Filkins,  24  Ark.  286:  37. 
v.  Gathercole,  6  De  G.  M.  &  G. 

1 :  864,  886. 
v.  Great  W.  R,  R.  Co.,  17  Mich. 

57:  818,  819,  120:!. 
v.Roberts,   122   Ala.  130:    199, 
249,  474. 
Hawley  v.  Diller,  178  U.  S.  476:  752. 
Hawthorn  v.  St,  Louis,  11  Mo.  59: 

1102. 
Hawthorne   v.  Calef,  2  Wall.   10: 

1193,  1198. 
Hay  v.  Lord  Provost  of  Perth,  4 

Macq.  Sc.  App.  544:  1084. 
Hay  burn's  Case,  2  Dall.  409:  20. 
Hayden's  Case,  3  Rep.  7:  1091. 
Hayes  v.  Arrington,  108  Tenn.  494: 
530,  661,  955. 
v.  Hanson,  12  N.  H.  284:  844, 

853. 
v.  Phelan,  4  Hun,  733:  1291. 
v.  State,  55  Ind.  99:  483. 
v.  Williams,  17  Colo.  465:  644, 
1291. 
Haynes,  In  re,  54  N.  J.  L.  6:  191, 
379,  380,  388,  389. 


TABLE   OF   CASES   CITED. 


C1X 


The  rererences  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Haynes  v.  Cape  May,  52  N.  J.  L. 
180:  539. 
v.  Tredway,  133  Cal.  400:  1190, 
1210. 
Haynie  v.  Knights  Templars,  etc. 
Co.,  139  Mo.  416:  415. 
v.  State,  32  Miss.  400:  964. 
Hays  v.  Cumberland  Co.,  186  Pa.  St. 
109:  200,  295,  464. 
v.  Cumberland  Co.,  5  Pa.  Supr. 

Ct.  159:  295. 
v.  Hays,  5  Rich.  31:  1061. 
v.  Hunt,  85  N.  C.  303:  1046. 
v.  Miller,  1  Wash.  Ter.  143: 1064. 
v.  Richardson.  1  Gill  &  J.  366: 
848. 
Hay  ward  v.  Gunn,  82  111.  385:  505. 
v.  Pilgrim  Society,  21  Pick.  270: 
1037. 
Haywood  v.  Mayor,  12  Ga.  404:  527. 
Hazeltine  v.  Central  Nat  Bank,  155 

Mo.  66:  616. 
Hazelton  v.  Valentine,  113  Mass. 

472:  618. 
Hazen  v.  Union  Bank,  1  Sneed,  115: 

357. 
Head  v.  Ins.  Co.,  2  Cranch,  127: 1136. 
v.  Providence  Ins.  Co.,  2  Cr.  127: 

1035. 
v.  Ward,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  280:  641. 
Head's  Iron  Foundry  v.  Sanders,  77 

Hun,  432:  694,  914, 
Heald  v.  State,  36  Me.  62:  554,  555. 
Healey  v.  Dudley,  5  Lans.  115:  345, 
401,  633. 
v.  Reed,  153  Mass.  197:  21. 
Heanley  v.  State,  74  Ind.  99:  356. 
Heard  v.  Baskervile,  Hob.  232:  649. 

v.  Heard,  5  Ga.  380:  308. 
Hearn  v.  Brogan,  64  Miss.  334:  462. 
v.  Ewin,  3  Cold.  399:  645,  862, 

1050. 
v.  Louttit,  42  Ore.  572:  235,  240, 
241. 


Hearne  v.  Garton,  2  E.  &  E.  66:  976. 

979,  1108. 
Heath,  Ex  parte,  3  Hill,  42:  636, 

1117,  1120. 
Heath,  In  re,  144  U.  S.  92:  788. 
Heath  v.  Griffen,  11  Wash.  466: 1259, 
1260. 
v.  Johnson,  36  W.  Va.  782:  240. 
v.  Kent  Circuit  Judge,  37  Mich. 

372:  1054. 
v.  Wallace,  138  U.  S.  573:  890. 
Hebbert  v.  Purchas,  L.  R.  3  P.  C. 

648:  461,  882. 
Hebert's  Succession,  5  La  Ann.  121: 

466. 
Hecht  v.  Heimann,  81  Mo.  App.  370: 

1306. 
Heckman  v.  Pinkney,  81  N.  Y.  211: 

518,  521. 
Hedger  v.  Rennaker,  3  Met.  (Ky.) 

255:  313,  1170,  1287. 
Hedley,  Ex  parte,  31  Cal.  108:  797. 
Hedworth  v.  Primate,  Hard.  318: 

882. 
Hegarty's  Appeal,  75  Pa.  St.  503: 

1233. 
Heil  v.  Simmonds,  17  Colo.  47:  644, 

1139,  1304. 
Heilbron's  Estate,  In  re,  14  Wash. 

536:  1160,  1161,  1191, 
Heilig  v.  Puyallup,  7  Wash.  29:  542. 
Heinssen  v.  State,  14  Colo.  228:  456, 

573. 
Heintz  v.   Mueller,   19  Ind.   App. 

240:  770,  771. 
Heinze  v.  Butte,  etc.  Min.  Co.,  107 

Fed.  165:  436,  440. 
Heirn  v.    Bridault,    37  Miss.   209: 

617. 
Heisey  v.  Risser,   3  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

196:  1139. 
Heiskell  v.  Mayor,  65  Md.  125:  862. 
Helena    v.  Rogan,    27  Mont.  135: 

442. 


iwr.i.i"   ov   c'Asi  s   i'i  i  i:i>. 


renoet  an  to  the  p:u,-<v:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol.  II,  pp.  C05-1315. 


Selena  Steam  n  &  B.Co.v.  Wells, 

16  Mont.  56:    120. 
Sellmau  v.  Shoulters,  11 1  Cal  186: 

187,  888,  188,  442,  446,  468,  634. 
Helm  v.  Chapman, 68  Cal.  891:  710. 
Bel  wig  v.  United  States,  188  U.  S. 

Seman  v.  MoNamara,  77  Mo.  App. 

1:  731,  788,914,  1076,  1249. 
Eemphill  v.  Bank  of  Ala.,  6  SA  M. 

■14:    I 

Hempstead  v.  New  York,  52  App. 

Div.  182:  650,  1150.  1174,  1175. 
Hemstrat  v.  Wassum,  49  Cal.  273: 

4G4. 
Henderson  v.  Alexander,  2  Ga.  81 : 
1077. 
v.  Bise,  3  Stark ie,  158:  655. 
v.  Collier  &  C.  L.  Co.,  2  Colo. 

App  251:  115. 
v.  Dowd,    116  N.   C.   795:    137, 

797. 
v.  Griffin,  5  Pet.  151:  616. 
v.  Koenig.    168    Mo.   356:  341, 

375,  407. 
v.  Ky.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  86  Ky. 

389:  934,  1293. 
v.  London  &  Lancashire  Ins. 

Co.,  135  Ind.  23:  185,  305. 
v.  Maxwell,  L   R,    5  Ch.   Div. 

892:  1142. 
v.  Reynolds,  85  Ga,   159:  1302, 

1303,  1304, 
v.  Sherboone,  2  M.  &  W.  236: 

484,  986. 
v.  State.  94  Ala.  95:  83,  100. 
Henderson's    Distilled    Spirits,   14 

Wall.  44:  996. 
Hendricks,  In  re,  60  Kan.  796:  142. 
Hendricks,  In  re.  5  N.  D.   114:  313. 
Hendricks   v.  State,  79  Miss.  368: 

97a 

Hendrickson  v.   Fries,  45  N.  J.  L 
555.  1106. 


Hendrickson  v.  Hendrickson,  7  Ind. 

18:  817. 
Hendriz  v.   Rieman,   6  Nob.  516: 

844,  854, 
Hendrix'a    Account,    146    Pa.   St. 

885,  500. 
Henig  v.  Slaed,  138  Mo.  4:50.  307. 
Henley  v.  State,  98  Tenn.  665:  13, 

566,  1805. 
Henneberger,  Matter  of,  155  N.  Y. 

420:   403,  407. 
Hennepin  Co.  v.  Bell,  43  Minn.  344: 
1003,  1007. 
v.  Jones.  18  Minn.  199:  342. 
Hennessey,  Matter  of,   164  N.   Y. 

393:  1117,  1120. 
Henrico  Co.  Supr.  v.  McGruder,  84 

Va.  828:  186,  289. 
Henrietta  M.  &  M.  Co.  v.  Gardner, 

173  U.  S.  123:  464. 
Henry  v.  Adey,  3  East,  222:  619. 
v.  Chester,    15  Vt.    460:     997, 

1009. 
v.  Davis,  13  W.  Va.  230:  1127. 
v.  Henry,  31  S.  C.  2:  135,  1169, 

1225. 
v.  Mayor.  91  Ga.  268:  846,  1029. 
v.  Sargeant,  13  N.  H.  321:  25. 
v.  Til  son,  17  Vt.  479:  664,  853. 
v.  Trustees,  48  Ohio  St.  671:  676, 

694,  717,  721,  760. 
v.  Ward,  49  Neb.  392:  448. 
Henry  &  C.  Co.  v.  Evans,  97  Mo.  47: 

749. 
Henschall  v.  Schmidt,  50  Mo.  454: 

642,  1226. 
Hensley  v.  Tarpey,  7  Cal.  288:  869. 
Henthorn  v.  Doe,  1  Blackf.  157:  868, 

871. 
Henzinger  v.  State,  39  Neb.   653: 

424. 
Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  603: 

642. 
Herber  v.  State,  7  Tex.  69:  1186. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXI 


The  references  ar~  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Herbert  v.   Baltimore  Co.,  97  Md. 
639:  248. 
v.  Easton,  43  Ala,  547:  550. 
Heridia  v.  Ayers,  12  Pick.  344:  625, 

633. 
Hering  v.  Chambers,  103  Pa.  St.  172: 

900. 
Herman  v.  Guttenberg,  63  N.  J.  L. 
616:  363,  381,  398,  775. 
v.  Oconto,  100  Wis.  391:  1139. 
Hermance,  In  re,  71  N.  Y.  481:  666, 

821. 
Hermanek  v.  Guthman,  179  111.  503: 
706,  955. 
v.  Guthman,  72  111.  App.  370: 
706,  955. 
Herndon    v.    Commonwealth,   105 

Ky.  197:  1185. 
Herold  v.  State,  21  Neb.  50:   687, 

1064. 

Herr  v.  Seymour,  76  Ala.  270:  465. 

Herrick  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.  R.  R. 

Co.,  31  Minn.  11:  28. 

v.  Niesz,  16  Wash.  74:  956. 

Herron  v.  Carson,  26  W.  Va.  62:  474, 

521. 
Herschfeld  v.  Clarke,  11  Exch.  712: 
1097. 
v.  Dexel,  12  Ga.  582:  619. 
Herschoff  v.  Treasurer,  45  N.  J.  L. 

288:  650. 
Hershy  v.  Latham,   42  Ark.   305: 

506. 
Hersom's  Case,  39  Me.  476:  931. 
Hertford  College,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  Div. 

707:  882. 
Hess  v.  Johnson,  3  W.  Va.  645:  643. 
v.  Pegg,  7  Nev.  23:  340,  784. 
v.  Trigg,  8  0kl.  286:  847. 
Hesse  v.  Seyp,  88  Mo.  App.  66:  1019. 
Hester  v.    Com'rs,    84  Mich.   450: 
1306. 
v.  Keith,  1  Ala.  (N.  S.)  316:  1131, 
1134. 


Heston  v.  Mayhew,  9S.  D.  501:  470. 
Hetland  v.  County  Com'rs,  89  Minn. 

492:  397,  404. 
Heward  v.  State,  13  S.  &  M.  261: 

683,  962. 
Hewes  v.  Reis,  40  Cal.  255:  1009. 
Hewey  v.  Nourse,  54  Me.  256:  634. 
Hewitt  v.  People,  186  111.  336:  510. 
v.  People,  87  111.  App.  367:  510. 
v.  Schultz,  180  U.  S.  139:  890. 
v.  Watertown  S.  E.  Co.,  65  111. 
App.  153:  846. 
Hewlett,   Ex  parte,   22  Nev.   333: 

236,  577,  597,  1298,  1303. 
Heydon's  Case,  3  Rep.  76:  545,  644, 

884. 
Hibbard  v.  Odell,  16  Wis.  664:  770. 
v.  Parmenter,  etc.  Co.,  70  N.  H. 
156:  556. 
Hibernia  R  N.  Co.  v.  De  Camp,  47 
N.  J.  L.  43:  1042. 
v.  De  Camp,  47  N.  J.  L.  518: 
1042. 
Hickman  v.  Alpaugh,  21  CaL  225: 
611. 
v.  Gaither,  2  Yerg.  200:  901. 
Hickok  v.  Hine,  23  Ohio  St.  523: 

1044. 
Hickory  Tree  Road,  43  Pa.  St.  139: 

464,  549,  661. 
Hicks  v.  Bell,  3  Cal.  219:  1053. 

v.  Jamison,   10    Mo.   App.    35: 
796,  799. 
Hick's  Estate,  7  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  274: 

505. 
Higginbotham  v.  State,  19  Fla.  557: 

554. 
Higgins  v.   Mitchell  Co.,  6    Kan. 
App.  314:  301,  447,  566. 
v.  State,  64  Md.  419:  466,  511. 
Highland  Park  v.  Detroit,  etc.  P. 
R.  Co.,  95  Mich.  489:  1194. 
v.  McAlpine,    117    Mich.    666: 
527,  943. 


0X11 


TABLK  ov  oam  s   oi  i  i:n. 


Tiio  rataraoei  ura  to  the  pages:  v"'-  i>  rr- i-603;  v°i-  n,  pp.  605-1815. 


Bightower  v.  Wells,  6  Yorg.  849: 

Hightstown   v.  Glenn,  45  N.  J.  L. 

105: 
Bigler  v.  People,  44  Mich.  299:  818. 
Bigley  v.  Gilmer,  3  Mont.  433:  330. 
liihn  v.  Courtis,  Bl  OaL  402:  899. 
Bilborn  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  23 

Mont.  339:  140.  142. 
Bildreth  v.  Crawford.  05  Iowa,  339: 

14a 

v.  Gwindon,  10  Cal.  490:  1136. 
llilke  v.  Eisenbeis.  104  Pa.  St.  514: 

Hill.  Ex  parte.  40  Ala.  121:  171. 
Hill,  Ex  parte,  6  Ch.  Div.  63:  711. 
Hill.  Ex  parte.  3  C.  &  P.  225:  816. 
Hill  v.  Bacon, 43  111.  477:  872. 
v.  Berry.  75  N.  Y.  229:  1202. 
v.  Coats,  109  I1L  App.  266:  1054. 
v.  Ginn,2Penn.  (Del.)  174:  572. 
v.  Grange,  1  Plowd.  178:  1079. 
v.  Grigsby,  32  Cal.  55:  611. 
v.  Kessler,  63  N.  C.  437:  1200. 
v.  Lovell,  47  Minn.  293:  1258. 
v.  Memphis.  134  U.  S.  198:  1194. 
v.  Nye.  17  Hun,  467:  1159. 
v.  Pressley,  96  Ind.  447:  334. 
v.  Smith,  Morris,  70:  460. 
v.  Sunderland,  3  Vt.  507:  576. 
v.  Townley,  45  Minn.  167:  1283, 

1285,  1287. 
v.  Yarborough,   62    Ark.    320: 
1231. 
Hilleker  v.    Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co., 

152  Ind.  86:  781. 
Hiller  v.  People,  2  Colo.  App.  459: 

242. 
Eillhouse  v.  Chester,  3  Day,  166: 

757. 
Hilliard  v.  Roach,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  174: 

1 225. 
Bill's  Adm'r  v.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  608: 
881. 


Hillyard  v.  Miller,  10  Pa.  St  826: 

489. 
Hilton  v.  Curry,  124  Cal.  84:  465. 

v.  Guyot,  159  U.  S.  113:  22,  24. 
Himrod  Coal  Co.  v.  Stevens,  104  111. 

App.  639:  889,891. 
Hinde  v.  Vattier,  5  Pet  398:  865, 

866. 
Hindmarsh  v.    Charlton,  8  H.  L. 

Cas.  166:  699. 
Hindry  v.  Holt,  24  Colo.  464:  766. 
Hine  v.  Pomeroy,  39  Vt.  211:  558. 
Hines  v.  Freeholders,  etc.,  45  N.  J. 
L.  504:  367. 
v.  R.  R.  Co.,  95  N.  C.  434:  649, 
651. 
Hingle  v.  State,  24  Ind.  28:  344. 
Hinsoldt  v.  Petersburg,  63  111.  157: 

99. 
Hinter mister  v.    First  Nat  Bank, 

64  N.  Y.212:  963. 
Hinze  v.   People,  92  111.  406:  580, 

592,  595. 
Hirn  v.  State,  1  Ohio  St  15:  1195. 
Hirsch  v.  Brunswick,  114  Ga,  776: 

300. 
Hirschburg  v.  People,  6  Colo.  145: 

459,  462,  4S1,  561. 
Hirst  v.  Molesbury,  L.  R,  6  Q.  B. 

130:  968. 
Hiss  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

52  Md.  242:  585. 
Hitchner  v.    Ehlers,   44  Iowa,  40: 

1273. 
Hixon  v.  Burson,  54  Ohio  St.  470: 

354,  406,  424. 
Hoa  v.  Lafranc,   18  La.  Ann.  393: 

642. 
Hoagland  v.   Sacramento,  52  Cal. 

142:  640. 
Hoare  v.  Silverlock,  12  Q.  B.  624: 

877. 
Hobart  v.   Supervisors,  17  Cal.  23: 

161,  170. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


CX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  L  pp.  1-603;  VoL  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Hobbs  v.  Memphis,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  9 

Heisk.  879:  866. 
Hockaday  v.  Wilson,  1  Head,  113: 

463,  466. 
Hodges  v.  Baltimore  Pass.  Ry.  Co., 
58  Md.  603:  401. 
v.  Baltimore  Union  Pass.  R.  R. 

Co.,  58  Md.  603:  429. 
v.  Buffalo,  2  Denio,  110:  1033. 
v.  Tama  Co.,  91  Iowa,  578:  917, 
1310. 
Hodnett  v.  State,  66  Miss.  26:  481, 

554,  1161. 
Hodsden  v.  Harridge,  2  Williams' 

Saunders,  64a;  1277. 
Hoentze  v.  Howe,  28  Wis.  293:  711. 
Hoetzel  v.  East  Orange,  50  N.  J.  L. 

354:  539. 
Hoey  v.  Gilroy,  129  N.  Y.  132:  661, 

955. 
Hoff  v.  Person,  1  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  357: 

303,  416. 
Hoffman  v.  Delihanty,  13  Abb.  Pr. 
388:  778. 
v.  Duel,  5  John.  232:  328,  331. 
v.  Dunlop,  1  Barb.  185:  645. 
v.  Pack,  123  Mich.  74:  1236. 
v.  Parsons,  27  Minn.  236;  231. 
v.  Pawnee  Co.  Com'rs.,  3  Okl. 

325:949,  1028. 
v.  Peters,  51  N.  J.  L.  244:  671. 
Hogan   v.  Akin,  181  III  448:   650, 
696,  731,  885. 
v.  Cushing,  49  Wis.  169:  1055, 

1258. 
v.  Devlin,  2  Daly,  184:  1151. 
v.  State,  36  Wis.  226:  1068. 
Hogane  v.   Hogane,  57   Ark.  508: 

463. 
Hogg  v.  Lobb,  7  Houst.  399:  749. 
Hoguet  v.  Wallace,  28  N.  J.  L.  523: 

1081,  1249,  1251. 
Hoke  v.  Richie,  100  Ky.  66:  1300. 
Holbrook  v.  Bliss,  9  Allen,  69:912. 


Holbrook  v.  Holbrook,  1  Pick.  248. 
653,  656,  659,  712,  730,  853, 
912. 
v.  Nichol,  36  111.  161 :  444 
Holcomb  v.  Boynton,  151  I1L  294: 
544,  546. 
v.  Davis,  56  111.  413, 172. 
v.  Tracy,  2  Minn.  241:  1287. 
Holden  v.  James,  11  Mass.  396:  343, 
576. 
v.  Minnesota,   137  U.   S.  483: 

492,  523, 1189. 
v.  Supervisors,   77   Mich.  202: 
231. 
Holding,  Ex  parte,  56  Ala.  458: 1124. 
Holl  v.  Deshler,  71  Pa,  St.  299:  660, 

666. 
Holland  v.    Davies,    36  Ark.  446, 
1120. 
v.  Mayor,  11  Md.  186: 1009, 1010. 
v.Osgood,  8Vt.  280:1124. 
v.  State,  34  Ga.  455:  963. 
Hollenback  v.  Fleming,  6  Hill,  303: 

644,  1045. 
Holley  v.  Holley,  Lit  Sel.  Cas.  505: 

611. 
Holliday  v.  Atlanta,  96  Ga.  377: 

1237. 
Hollingworth  v.  Palmer,  4  Ex.  267: 

730. 
Hollingsworth  v.  Thompson,  45  La. 
Ann.  222:  57,  85,  91. 
v.  Virginia,  3  Dall.  378:  553. 
Hollis  v.  Francois,  1  Tex.  118:  327. 
Hollister  v.  Donahoe,  11  S.  D.  497: 
1190,  1210. 
v.  Hollister  Bank,  2  Keyes,  245: 

1019,  1054,  1056. 
v.  McCord,  111  Wis.  538:  619. 
Hollister  Bank,  Matter  of,  27  N.  Y. 

383:  1019. 
Hollman  v.  Bennett,  44  Miss.  322: 

644,  862, 864,  1064. 
Hollon  v.  Center,  102  Ky.  119: 1130. 


i  AiM.l     OF  <  AlSES   cited. 


Thereto  i  pa  -■  b:  Vol  l.  pp.  I  608;  VoL  u.  pp.  005-1315. 


Bolman  v.  Frost  86  s.  Q  890:  964 
v.  Johnson,  l  Cowp,  8 13:  95. 
\.  King,  :  Met  384:  838. 

boo!  District,  77  Mich.  605: 
75  :. 
Bolman's  Appeal,  106  Pa.  St.  503: 

874, 
Bolman's  Beira  v.  Bank  of  Norfolk, 

12  Ala  869:  637. 
Bolmberg  v.  Jones,  7  Idaho.  753: 

Holmes  v.  Broughton,  10  Wend.  75: 
610,  Old. 
v.  Carley,  81  X.  Y.  290:  1253 
v.  French,  0s  Me.  535:  551. 
v.  1  [arrington,  20  Mo.  App.  661: 

-     . 
v.  Hunt.  132  Mass.  505:  888. 
v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540:  754. 
v.  Paris.  73  Me.  509:  710,  729, 
1106. 
Holt  v.  Agnew,  67  Ala.  360:  860,  864. 
v.  Green,  73  Pa.  St.  198:  938. 
v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R.  R.  Co., 

174  Mo.  324:  1054. 
v.  Mayor,  111  Ala.  369:  353,  428. 
Holt  Co.  Bank  v.  Holt  Co.,  53  Neb. 

837:  4G9. 
Hoi  ton  v.  State,  28  Fla.  303:  133,  300. 
Holyland   v.  Lewin,  L.    R.  26  Ch. 

Div.  266,  721. 
I  folyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  500: 

1023,  1033. 
Roman  v.  Liswell,  6  Cow.  639:  328. 
Home  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Nolan,  21 

Mont  203:  899,  571,  795,  955. 
Home  for  Inebriates  v.  Reis,  95  Cal. 

142. 
Home    Ins.    Co.    v.    Northwestern 
Packet   Co.   32   Iowa,  223: 
1051. 
v.  Swigert,  104  111.  653,  168. 
v.  Taxing  District,  4  Lea,  644, 
417,  W3,  51 L 


Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  United  States,  8 

Ct.  of  CI.  449:  37. 
Homer  v.  Commonwealth,  106  Pa. 

St.  831:  461,  183. 
Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt.   266: 

1304. 
Bomestead  ( "ases,  81  Tex.  077:  1098. 
Homire  v.  Halfman,  156  Ind.  470: 

1266,  1368. 
Bomzighausen  v.  Knoche,  58  Kan. 

646:  72.  75,93,  100. 
Honey  v.  Clark,  37  Tex.  686:  1230, 

1231. 
Hood   v.  Norton,  202  Pa.  St.  114: 

303. 
Hook  v.  Gray.  6  Barb.  398:  938. 
Hooker  v.  Greenville,  130  N.  C.  472: 
.  05. 
v.  Hooker,   10  Sm.  &  M.  599: 
1219. 
Hoole  v.  Dorrah,  75  Miss.  257:  429. 
Hoopsr  v.  Birchfield,  115  Ala.  226: 
739,  797. 
v.Creager,84  Md.  193:  857,858, 

859. 
v.  Mayor,  13  Md.  404:  802. 
Hope  v.  Deaderick.  8  Humph.  1:  17, 
18. 
v.  Flentge,  140  Mo.  390:  1290. 
v.  Gainsville,  72  Ga.  246:  258. 
v.  Johnston,  28  Fla.  55:  468. 
Hopkins  v.  Braddock,  172  Pa.  St. 
605:  503. 
v.  Florida  Cent,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
97  Ga.    107:  693,  699,  1041. 
v.  Haywood,  13  Wend.  205:  708. 
v.  Jamieson-Dixon  Mill  Co.,  11 

Wash.  308:  559. 
v.  Jones.  22  Ind.  310:  641. 
v.  Sandidge,  31  Miss.  668:  1059. 
v.  Scott  38  Neb.  661:  247,  315, 
469. 
Hopt  v.  Utah,  110  U.  S.  574:  1175, 
1180. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Horkey  v.  Kendall,  53  Neb.  522:  236, 

434. 
Horn  v.  Lockhart,  17  Wall.  570:  37. 
v.  State,  114  Ga.  509:  440,  525. 
Born  buckle  v.   Toombs,  18  Wall. 

648:  1054. 
Home  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Cold.  72: 

911. 
Horner  v.  Lyman,  2  Abb.  App.  Dec. 
399:  642. 
v.  State,  1  Ore.  267:  970. 
Hornsey  Local  Board  v.  Monarch 

Invest.  Bldg.  Soc,  L.  R.  24  Q.  B. 

D.  1:  915. 
Hornung  v.  Board  of  Canvassers, 

119  Mich.  51:  1290. 
Horton  v.  Sledge,  29  Ala.  478:  609. 
Horwich  v.  Walker-G.  L.  Co.,  205 

111.  497:  425. 
Hoskins  v.  Crabtree,  103  Ky.  117: 

238. 
Hoskinson  v.  Adkins,  77  Mo.  537: 

1142. 
Hotchkiss  v.  Marion,  12  Mont.  218: 

185,  191,  238,  249. 
Hotham  v.  Sutton,  15  Ves.  320:  723, 

824,  833. 
Hough  v.  Windus,  L  R  12  Q.  B.  D. 

229:  740. 
Houghtailing  v.  Ball,  19  Mo.   84: 

611,  869. 
Houghton    v.    Commissioners,    23 
Mich.  270:  457. 
v.  Lee,  50  Cal.  101 :  1260. 
Houghton  Co.  v.  Auditor  General, 

41  Mich.  28:  1009. 
Houghton's  Appeal,    42    CaL    35: 

1052. 
Houk  v.  Barthold,  73  Ind.  21:  1086, 

1305. 
Housatonic  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lee  &  H 

R.  R.  Co.,  118  Mass.  391:  1044. 
House  v.  House,  5  Har.  &  J.  125: 


House  v.  State,  41  Miss.  737:  462. 
House  Bill  No.  203,  In  re,  21  Colo. 

29:  417. 
House  Bill  No.  250,  In  re,  26.  Colo. 

234:  95. 
Householder  v.  Granby,  40  Ohio  St. 

430:  1127. 
House  Resolution,  In  re,  12  Colo. 

359:  141,  435,  534. 
House  Roll  No.  284,  In  re,  31  Neb. 

505:  133,  432,  448. 
Houston    v.   Boyle,   10    Ired.    496: 
640. 
v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  1 :  147. 
v.  Steele,  98  Ky.  596:  1290. 
Houston,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bradley,  45 
Tex.  171:  1291. 
v.  Ford,  53  Tex.  364:  513,  514. 
v.  Odum,  53  Tex.  343:  67,  97. 
v.  State,  95  Tex.  507:  514,  528, 
847,  880,  890,  896,  1027. 
Hovey  v.  Wyandotte  Co.,  56  Kan. 

577:  156. 
Howard  v.  Bangor  &  A.  R.  R.  Co., 
86  Me.  387:  441. 
v.  Bodington,  L.  R.  2  P.  Div. 

203:  637,  1116. 
v.  Central  Bank,  3  Ga.  380: 1077. 
v.  Clatsop  Co.,  41  Ore.  149:  464. 
v.  Hulbert,  63  Kan.  793:   532, 

540. 
v.  Ives,  1  Hill.  263:  337. 
v.  Mansfield,  30  Wis.  75:  732. 
v.  Moot,  64  N.  Y.  262:  1210. 
v.  Schneider,  10  Kan.  App.  137: 

217. 
v.  State,  5  Ind.  183:  555. 
v.  Supervisors,  54  Neb.  443:  302. 
Howard   Association's  Appeal,  70 

Pa.  St.  344:  511,  704,  927,  929. 
Howard  Co.,  Division  of,  15  Kan. 

194:  881,  882. 
Howard-Harrison  I.  Co..  Ex  parte, 
119  Ala.  484:  78,  79,  84,  85. 


CXV] 


TAB!  i:   OV   CASES   CITED, 


Th<>  references  nn-  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-GCU;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


Eoward  Oil  Co.  v.  Davis,  76  Tex. 

955. 
Howard  Saw  Inst.  v.  Newark,  63  N. 

.1.  1..  55:  i'Mi. 
Howe,  Ex  part*,  86  Ore.  181:  382, 

840,  Oil.  '.'-r,. 
Howe,  Matter  of,  48  Hun,  235:  325. 
Howe,   Matter  of.   112   N.  Y.   100: 

Howe  v.  Ballard,  113  Wis.  375:  22, 
.  618,621. 
v.  Peokham,6  Uow.Pr.229:  861, 
B62. 

Howell  v.  Hair,  15  Ala,  194:  1015, 
1282. 
v.  State.  71  Ga.  224:  20.1,  291, 

887. 
v.  Stewart.  54  Mo.  400:  918,939. 
How  r  of,  21  Vt.  610:  319. 

Howey.  v.  Miller,  67  N.  C.  459: 
Howland  v.  Luce,  16  John.  135: 1118. 
Howland   Coal   &   Iron  Works    v. 
Brown,  13  Bush,  681: 199,  202,  218, 
221. 
Howlett  v.  Cheetham,  17  Wash.  626: 

211,  223,  4!i5.  570.  795. 
Hoyt  v.  Com'rs  of  Taxes,  23  N.  Y. 
224:  699. 
v.  McNeil,  13  Minn.  390:  869. 
ilronek  v.  People,  134  111.  139:  205, 

S50. 
Hubbard  v.  Johnstone,  3  Taunt.  177: 
996. 
v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  70 

Conn.  563:  1226. 
v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  506:  555. 
Hubbell  v.  Denison,  20  Wend.  181: 
c,  15. 
v.  Weldon,  Lalor,  139:  1137. 
Huber  v.  People,  49  N.  Y.  132:  188, 

M.,iner,  2  Bing.  N.  C.  202: 
1211. 
Hubman  v.  State,  61  Ark.  482:  463. 


Huddleston  v.  Askey,  56  Ala.  218: 

759,  781. 
Hudler  v.  Golden,  86  N.  Y.  446:  644, 

1212. 
Hudson  v.  Buck,  51  N.  J.  L.  155: 
369.  377. 
v.  Jefferson  Co.  Ct,  28  Ark.  359: 

ii  at;. 

v.  King.  23  UL  App.  118:  784. 
v.  Tooth,  L  R  3  Q.  B.  Div.  46: 
882. 
Hudson  Co.  v.  Buck,  49  N.  J.  L.  228: 
402. 
v.  Clarke.  65  N.  J.  L.  271:  368,. 
379,  3S7,  406. 
Hudspeth  v.  Davis,  41  Ala.  389: 1210. 
Hudston  v.  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R. 

4  Q.  B.  :JGG:  778. 
Huecke  v.  Milwaukee  City  Ry.  Cov, 

69  Wis.  401:  1121. 
Huff  v.  Woodmen,  85  Mo.  App.  96: 

1159. 
Huffman  v.  Hall,  102  Cal.  26:  443; . 
517. 
v.  State,  29  Ala.  40:  963. 
v.  State,  30  Ala.  532:  908. 
Eugg  v.  Camden,  39  N.  J.  L.  620: 

1117. 
Huggins  v.  Bambridge,  Willes,  241: 
931. 
v.  Kavanaugh,   52  Iowa,   368, 

127a 

Hughes  v.  Cannon,  2  Humph.  589: 

1231. 
v.  Chester,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  1  Drew, 

&  Sm.  524:  055. 
v.  Chester,  etc.  Ry.  Co..  8  Jur. 

(N.  S.)  221:  1019. 
v.  Done,  1  Q.  B.  301 :  655. 
v.  Farrar,  45  Me.  72:  778. 
v.  Felton,  11  Colo.  489:  1051. 
v.  Griffiths.  106  E.  C.  L.  R.  332: 

336,  3:J>7. 
v.  Linn  Co.,  37  Ore.  Ill:  1002, 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXVli 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Hughes   v.  Milligan,  42  Kan.  396: 
339. 
v.  Murdock,  45  La.   Ann.  935: 

132. 
v.  Upson,  84  Minn.  85:  1290. 
v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  79 
Mo.  App.  133:  1019. 
Hughston  v.  Carroll  Co.,  68  Miss. 

660:  1299. 
Hugo  v.  Miller,  50  Minn.  105:  768, 

777,  778. 
Hulbert  v.  Clark,  128  N.  Y.  295:  547, 

1218,  1289. 
Huling  v.  Topeka,  44  Kan.  577:  155. 
Hull  v.  Hull,  2  Strob.  Eq.  174:  1111. 
v.  Miller,  4  Neb.  503:  93,94,  96, 
97. 
Humboldt  Co.  v.  County  Com'rs,  6 
Nev.  30:  242,  243,  926. 
»Hume  v.  Eagon,  73  Mo.  App.  271: 
775. 
Humer  v.  Cumberland  Co.,  4  Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  588:  500. 
Humes  v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

221:  412,  413. 
Humphrey  v.  Auditor-General,  70 
Mich.  292:  1159,  1166. 
v.  Chamberlain,  11  N.  Y.  274: 
645,  1050. 
Humphreys  v.  Green,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B. 

Div.  148:  1101. 
Humphreyville   Cop.    Co.    v.  Ster- 
ling, 1  Brun.  Colo.  Cas.  3:  621. 
Hundall  v.  Ham,  172  111.  76:  191, 

19*J,  286. 
Hundley  v.  Chaney,  65  Cal.   363: 

1197. 
Hunt,  In  re,  81  Me.  275:  1297. 
Hunt  v.  Burrel,  5  John.  137:  145. 
v.  Card.  94  Me.  386:  534. 
v.  Grant,  19  Wend.  90:  1127. 
v.  Jennings,  5  Blackf.  195:  544, 

551,  1169. 
v.  Murray,  17  Iowa,  313:  316. 


Hunt  v.  Wright,  70  Miss.  298:  58, 

125. 
Hunter  v.   Glenn,   1   Bailey,   542: 
1278. 
v.  Memphis,  93  Tenn.  571:  447, 

566. 
v.  Nockolds,  1  McN.  &  G.  651: 
648. 
Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  U.  S.  657: 
26. 
v.  Barton,  64  III.  502:  1254. 
v.  Brinkerhoff,  10  Wend.  278: 

1278. 
v.  Forkson,  6  Hill,  149:  645. 
Huntingtower  v.  Gardiner,  1  B.  & 

C.  297:  979. 
Huntzinger    v.    Brock,   3    Grant's 

Cas.  243:  1200. 
Hurd   v.  McClellan,  14  Colo.  213: 

815,  828. 
Hurford  v.  Omaha,  4  Neb.  336:  471, 

637, 1138. 
Hurla  v.  Kansas  City,  46  Kan.  738: 

155. 
Hurlburt  v.  Merriara,  3  Mich.  144: 

123. 
Hurley  v.  State,  98  Tenn.  665:  137. 
v.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  333:  765. 
v.  Texas,  20  Wis.  634:  521,  543. 
Huron,  In  re,  58  Kan.  152:  6. 
Hurst  v.  Hawn,  5  Ore.  275:  463. 
v.  Samuels,  29  S.  C.  476:  492, 

523. 
v.  Warner,  102  Mich.  238:  150. 
Hurt  v.  Cook,  151  Mo.  416:  507. 
Hurth  v.  Bower,  30  Hun,  151:  1052. 
Husbands  v.  Talley,  3  Penn,  (Del.) 

88:  462,  517,  519. 
Hutchings  v.  Commercial  Bank,  91 

Va.  68:  736,797,801. 
Hutchinson  v.  Davis,  58  111.  App 
358:  963. 
v.  Hubbard,  21  Neb.  33:  1266. 
v.  Self,  153  111.  542:  513. 


CXVlll 


I  AKl.i:    OF    CASKS    CITED. 


Thi>  references  nr.>  to  the  pages:  Vol.  i,  pp,  1  60S;  \  ol.  n,  pp,  606  1816, 


ihinsoo  v.  Whitmore,  90  Mioh. 

lliith  v.  Ina  Co.,  8  Bosw.  538:  611. 
Huyser  v.  Commonwealth,  25  Ky. 

!..  i:.  608:  141,  301. 
a  W.  Wrigtal  L.  Co.  v.  Hixon,  105 

Wia  158:  1017. 
Hyatt  v.  Taylor,  42  N.  Y.  25S:  705. 
Hyde  v.  Cogan,  2  Doug.  699:  991, 
1086 
v.  German  Nat.  Bank,  115  Wia 

170:  '2-2,  603. 
v.  Hyde,  L.  R  1  P.  &  D.  134: 

748. 
v.   Wabash,  etc.   R  R.  Co.,  Gl 

Tow,,.  441:  07. 

v.  White.  24  Tex.  137:  109. 

Hyde  Park  v.  Cemetery  Ass'n,  119 

111.  141:  J 

v.  Chicago,  104  111.  156:  232. 

Hydride  v.  Burke,  30  Ark.  124:  611. 

Hyland  v.  Brazil  Block  Coal  Co., 

162 
tfymao  v.  State,  87  Tenn.  109:  232. 


I. 


Ihmsen  v.  Morion gahela  Nav.  Co., 

32  Pa.  St.  153:  671.  674,  676. 
lies  v.  West  Ham  Union,  L.  R  8 

Q.  B.  Div.  69:  999. 
Illinois  Cent.  R  R  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
138  111.  453:  730. 
v.  Chicago.   173    111.    471:   702, 

9ia 

v.  Chicago,  etc.   R  R.  Co.,  122 

111.  47:;:    1041,  1044. 
v.  People,   143   111.  434:  72.  84, 

^,94 
v.  Wells.    104   Tenn.    706:    144, 

1311. 
v.  Wren,  43  III.  77:  98,  99. 
Illinois,  etc.  Canal  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
14  111.  334:  551,  1169. 


Illinois,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  (lay,  6  111. 

App.  898:  1136. 
Illinois  Slate  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis 

etc.  Ry.  Co.,  208  111.  419:  1041. 
Illinois  Watoh  Case  Co.  v.  Pearson, 

140  111.  423:  846,  847. 
Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Bur- 
lington, 60  Iowa,  500:  430. 
India,  The,  Brown  &  L.  201:  491. 
India,  The,  33  L.  J.  Rep.  P.  M.  & 

A.  193:  461. 
Indiana  Cent.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Potts,  7 

Ind.  681:  201,203,204. 
Indiana,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Attica,  56 
Ind.  476:  1045. 
v.  People,  154  111.  558:  693,  738, 

797. 
v.  Wilson,  77  III.  603:  1128. 
Indianapolis  v.   Huegele,  115  Ind. 
581:  229. 
v.  Imberry,  17  Ind.  175:  642. 
v.  Morris,   25    Ind.    App.    409: 

468. 
v.  Navin,  151  Ind.  139:  385,  398. 
Indianapolis,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Case, 
15  Ind.  42:  872. 
v.  Kercheval,  16  Ind.  84:  1194. 
v.  Stephens,  28  Ind.  429:  872. 
Industrial  School  Dist.  v.  White- 
head, 13  N.  J.   Eq.  290:  516,  638. 
Industry,   The   Schooner,    1    Gall. 

114:  483,  963. 
Ingalls  v.  State,  48  Wis.  647:  1185. 
Inge  v.   Murphy,  10  Ala.  885:  621, 

622. 
Ingersoll  v.  Nassau  Elec.  R.  R  Co., 

157  N.  Y.  453:  707. 
Ingles  v.  Strauss,  91  Va.  209:  198, 

222. 
Inglis   v.    Haigh,  8   M.   &  W.  769: 
1281. 
v.  Trustees,  3  Pet.  99:  127,  616. 
Ingraham    v.    Hart,    11   Ohio,  055: 
622 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Ingraham  v.  Regan,  23  Miss.  213: 
784. 
v.  Speed,  30  Miss.  410:  711. 
Ingram    v.   Colgan,    106   Cal.  113: 
1313. 
v.  State,  27  Ala.  17:  871. 
Ingram's  Case,  Co.  Lit.  234a:  1105. 
Inheritance  Tax,   In   re,   23   Colo. 

492:  426. 
Inkster  v.    Carver,   16  Mich.   484: 

218,  927. 
Inlow  v.  Graham  Co.,  6  Kan.  A  pp. 

391:  301,  1172. 
In  man  v.  State,  65  Ark.  508:  517. 
Innis  v.  Templeton,  95  Pa.  St.  262: 

1142. 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Stokes,  9  Phila.  80: 

649.  650. 
Insurance    Co.   of  North    Am.   v. 

Bachler,  44  Neb.  549:  419. 
Internal  Imp.  Fund,  In  re,  24  Colo. 

247:  768. 
International  Patent  P.  etc.  Co.,  In 

re,  37  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  351:  965. 
International    Trust    Co.    v.    Am. 
Loan  &  T.  Co.,  62  Minn.  501:  708, 
1013. 
Interstate  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Powell, 

55  S.  C.  316:  1160,  1161,  1191. 
Intoxicating  Liquor  Cases,  25  Kan. 

751:  920. 
Iona,  The,  L.  R.  1  P.  C.  426:  1005.  . 
Iowa  Elec.  M.  C.  Ass'n  v.  Board,  87 

Iowa.  659:  427. 
Iowa  Land  Co.  v.  Soper,  39  Iowa, 
112:  392. 
v.  Soper,  48  Iowa,  612:  392. 
Iowa  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  187  U. 

S.  335:  40,  614. 
Iowa  S.  &  L  Ass'n  v.  Curtis,  107 
Iowa,  504:  239,  1197. 
v.  Heidt,   107   Iowa,   297:    416, 

1197. 
v.  Selby,  111  Iowa,  402:  231. 


Irelan  v.  Colgan,  96  Cal.  413:  846, 

848. 
Ireland  v.  Mackintosh,  22  Utah,  296: 
1289. 
v.  Palestine,  etc.  T.  Co.,  19  Ohio 
St.  369:  1198. 
Ireton  v.  Lonbuer,  9  Kan.  App.  561: 

301. 
Ironsides.   The,    Lushington,    458: 

1218,  1224. 
Irresistible,  The,  7  Wheat.  551:  20, 

554,  678,  679. 
Irving  v.  Humphreys,  Hopk.  364: 
328,  331. 
v.  McLean,  4  Blackf,  52:  869. 
Irwin  v.  Gregory,  86  Ga.  605:  578. 
Irwin's  Succession,  33  La.  Ann.  63: 

251. 
Isabelle  v.  Iron  Cliffs  Co.,  57  Mich. 

120:  330,  335. 
Isenhour  v.  State,  157  Ind.  517:  150, 

191,  229,  249. 
Isham  v.  Bennington  Iron  Co.,  19 

Vt.  230:  679. 
Isitt  v.  Beeston,  L.  R  4  Ex.  159:  809. 
Itawamba  v.  Candler,  62  Miss.  193: 

1054. 
Iuka  v.  Schlosser,  97  III  App.  222: 

706.  914. 
Iverson  v.  State,  52  Ala.  170:  462. 
Ivey  v.  McQueen,  17  Ala.  408:  1307. 

J. 

Jack  v.  Cold,  114  Iowa,  349:  1200. 
Jackman  v.  Dubois,  4  John.    216: 
1065. 
v.  Garland,  64  Me.  133:  312, 313.. 
325. 
Jackson  v.  Baehr,  138  Cal.  266:  300, 
428. 
v.  Bradt,  2  Caines,  169:  636, 710, 

730. 
v.  Butler,  8  Minn.  117:  1206. 


I'W 


TABLE   OF   OAS1  S    CITBD. 


Tin-  rvforonoos  nro  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp,  1-608;  Vol.  II,  pj>.  I 


Jackson    7,    C&irns,   20   John.    301: 

itlln,  2  John.  248:627,  1010. 
v.  ratlin,  8  John.  520:  027. 
v.  Chew,  12  Wheat  153:  610. 
v.  Collins.8  Cow.  89:  698,  729. 
v.  Cory,  8  John.  385:  1038. 
v.  Dillon,    2    Overt,  201:    1230, 

v.  Gilchrist,  15  John.  89:    653, 

051,  055,  1229,  1231. 
v.  Hammond,    2    Caines    Cas. 

337:  1037. 
v.  Hobby,  20  John.  361:  645. 
v.  Jackson  Co.,  117  Mich.  305: 

301. 
v.  Kittle,  34  -W.  Ya.  207:  732, 

956. 
v.  Lamphire,  3  Pet.  280:  1023, 

1197,  1207. 
v.  Lervey,  5  Cow.  397:  939. 
v.  Move,  33  Ga.  296:  6S3. 
v.  Noble,   54    Iowa,  641:    1262, 

127:!. 
v.  Phelps,  3  Caines,  62:  6S3. 
v.  Shelton,   89  Tenn.  82:  1261. 
v.  Shepard,  7  Cow.  88:  1046. 
v.  Shepherd.  0  Cow.  44  4:  645. 
v.  State,  76  Ala.  26:  465. 
.v.  State,  131  Ala.  21:  29,  78,  85, 

171. 
v.  State,  30  Tex.  Ct.  App.  664. 

1133. 
v.  Supervisors,    34    Neb.    680: 

v.  Thurman,  6  John.  322:  693. 
v.  Walsh,  75  Md.  304:  1195. 
v.  Warren,  32  I1L331:  014,  1250. 
v.  Young,    5    Cow.    209:    1117, 
1130. 
Jackson,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Davison, 

65  Mich.  410:  1025,  1026,  1046. 
Jackson    Fire    Clay,    etc.     Co.    v. 
Snyder,  93  Mich.  325:  791. 


Jackson  iV'  Suburban  Traction  Co. 
v.    Commissioner  of  R.  R,  128 
Mich.  164:  301. 
Jacksonville    v.    Basnett,   20  Fla. 

525:  20.-),  1230,  1832. 
Jacksonville,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
33  Fla.  60S:  437. 
v.  Harris,  33  Fla.  217:  814. 
Jacob  v.  State,  3  Humph.  493:  610. 
v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  520; 
1058.  1061. 
Jacobs,  In  re,   98  N.  Y.   98:  1019, 

1202. 
Jacobs  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  100 
Cal.  121:  913,  954. 
v.  Brett,  L.  R   20  Eq.   6:  1052. 
v.  Graham,  1  Blackf.  392:  327, 

329. 
v.  Kruger,  19  Cal.  411:  1107. 
v.  Small  wood,  03  N.  C.  112: 
Jacobyv.  Shafer,  105  Pa  St.  610: 

844. 
Jaco.uins  v.  Clark,  9  Cush.  279: 1226. 
v.  Commonwealth,  9  Cush.  279: 
642,  1182,  1183. 
Jacubeck   v.    Hewitt,  61  Wis.  96: 

1055,  1258. 
Jadwin  v.  Hurley,  10  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

104:  533. 
James    v.    Appel,   192    U.    S.   129: 
7S5. 
v.  Buzzard,  Hempst.  259:  562. 
v.  Catherwood,  3  D.  &  R  190: 

25. 
v.  Commonwealth,  12  S.  &  R 

220:  4G1. 
v.  Dubois.  16  N.  J.  L.  285:  547, 

548,  551.  563,  654. 
v.  Rowland,  52  Md.  462:  635. 
v.  West,  67  Ohio  St.  28:  1117, 
1122. 
Jameson  v.  Gile,  98  Iowa,  490:  770. 
v.  State,  32  Tex.   Crim.   Rep. 
385:  304. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED.  CXXi 

The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


James  Smith  Woolen  Machinery- 
Co.  v.  Browne,  206  Pa,  St.  543: 
455.' 
Jamison  v.  Ramsey,  128  Mich.  315: 

1170. 
Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288: 

19,  428. 
Janney  v.  Buell,  55  La.  408:  473, 

1056. 
January  v.  January,  7  T.  B.  Mon. 

542:  1210. 
Janvrin  v.  De  la  Mare,  14  Moore's 

P.  C.  334:  892. 
Jaques  v.  Golightly,  2  W.  Bl.  1073: 

918. 
Jarman,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  D. 

838:  778,  1149. 
Jarvis  v.  Bradford,  88  III.  App.  685: 
510. 
v.  Jarvis,  3  Edw.  Ch.  462:  641, 

1229. 
v.  Robinson,  21  Wis.  523:  866, 
874. 
Jasper  v.  Porter,   2  McLean,  579: 

865. 
Jay  v.  School  Dist.,  24  Mont.  219: 

699. 
Jefferson  v.  Reitz,  56  Pa.  St.  44: 

528. 
Jefferys  v.  Boosey,  4  H.  L.  815:  630, 

648,  709,  711,723. 
Jenkihg  v.  Osman,  79  Mich.    305: 

247. 
Jenkins  v.  Collard,  145  U.  S.  546: 
628. 
v.  Crevier,  50  N.  J.  L.  351:  1052: 
v.  Ewin,  8  Heisk.  456:  781. 
v.  Union  Turnpike  Co.,  1  Cai. 

Cases,  86:  624. 
v.  Wild,  14  Wend.  539:  1018. 
Jenkinson  v.  Thomas,  4  T.  R  665: 

963. 
•  Jennings  v.  Love,  24  Miss.  249:  699, 
712. 


Jennings  v.  Webb,  8  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)  43:  1240. 
Jensen  v.  Fricke,  133  111.  171:  465, 

467,  1226. 
Jermyn   v.  Scranton,  186   Pa.  St. 

595:  158,  363. 
Jernigan  v.  Holden,  34   Fla.  530: 
517,  519,  520. 
v.  Madison ville,    102  Ky.   313: 
156. 
Jerome   v.   Ross,  7  John  Ch.  315: 

1042. 
Jersey  City  v.  Hudson,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 
420:  931,  1038,  1039. 
v.  Jersey  City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
20  N.  J.  Eq.  360:  4S8. 
Jersey  Co.   v.  Davison,  29  N.  J.  L 

415:  912,  914. 
Jesson  v.  Wright,  2  Bligh.  2:  747. 
Jessup  v.  Carnegie,  80  N.  Y.  441: 

784. 
Jewell  v.  Weed,  18  Minn.  272:  697. 
701. 
v.  Welch,  117  Mich.  65:  1274 
Jewett  v.  Wanshura,  43  Iowa,  574: 

1268,  1273. 
Jewison  v.  Dyson,  9  M.  &  W.  540: 

892. 
Jimison  v.  Adams  Co.,  130  I1L  558: 

1158,  1162. 
Job  v.  Alton,  189  111.  256:  502. 
Jobb  v.  Meagher  Co.,  20  Mont  424: 

302,  492,  511. 
Jochein  v.  Dutcher,  104  Wis.  611: 

1224. 
Jockheck  v.  Shawnee  Co.  Com'rs, 

53  Kan.  780:  249. 
Joffee,  Ex  parte,  46  Mo.  App.  360: 

472,  473,  515. 
Johanson  v.  Washington,  190  U.  S. 

179:  1027. 
Jolines  v.  Johnes,  3  Dow.  15:  1075. 
Johns  v.  State,  78  Ind.  332:  483. 
Johnson,  Ex  parte,  7  Cow.  424: 1121. 


"I     OA8E8    OITED. 


Th  ■  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  l.  pp,  i-G03;  Vol.  11,  pp.  005-lSli 


Johnson,  In  re,  98  CaX  581;  L117, 

Johnnon  v,  Asbury  Park,  58  N.  J.  L. 
804: 
n.  Asbury  Park,  60  N.J.  L.  437: 
311,  880. 

v.  Ballon.  88  Mich.  379:  8S9. 
v.  Barham,    90    Va   305:    124, 

79ft 
v.  Bond,  Hempst.  533:  1206. 
v.  Bradstreet  Co.,  87  Ga.  79:757, 

l'J25. 
v.  Burrell.  2  Hill,  23S:  1102. 
v.  Bush,  3  Barb.  Ch.  207:  512. 
v.  Byru\  Hempst.  434:  463. 
v.  Champion.  S!S  Ga.  527:  771. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

114. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.   R,  R,  Co.,  64 

Wis.  425:   1292. 
v.  Common  Council,  16Ind.  227: 

B79. 
v.  Detrick,  152  Mo.  243:  766,1145. 
v.  Drummond,  16  I1L  App.  641: 

1267. 
v.  Fluetsch,  176  Mo.  452:  861. 
v.  Gebhauer,  159  Ind.  271:  19, 

1214. 
v.  Goodyear  Min.  Co.,  127  CaL  4: 

416. 
v.  Gram,  72  111.  App.  676:  981. 
v.  Haines,  4  Dall.  64:   1112. 
v.   Uarisconi,  90  Tex.  321:  135, 

781. 
v.  Harrison,  47  Minn.  575:  185, 

1-';.  197,  249.  885. 
v.  Hesse r,  61  Neb.  631:  619. 
v.  II..  Xy.)  566:  199, 

1210. 
v.   Hill,  90  Wis.  19:  1235,  1201. 
v.  Hudson,  11  East,  ISO: 
v.  Johnson,  26  Ind.  441:  642. 
v.   Johnson,   52  Md.   668:  1159, 

1320. 


Johnson  v.  Johnson,  100  Mich.  326: 

127r.. 
v.  Joliet.  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  23  111. 

202,  951. 
v.  Koockogey,  23  Ga.  183:  1225. 
v.  Martin,  75  Tex.  33:  158:  386, 

447. 
v.  Meeker,  1  Wis.  436:  550. 
v.   Merchandise,  2  Paine,   601: 

308. 
v.  Milwaukee,  88  Wis.  383:  135, 

392.  397. 
v.  Mocabee,  1  Okl.  204:  339. 
v.  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  180  Mass. 

407:  21. 
v.  N.  Y.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  187  U.  & 

491:  23,624. 
v.  People,  83  111.  431:  202,  203, 

211. 
v.  People,  202  111.  53:  468. 
v.  Richardson,  44  Ark. 365:  1220, . 

1231,  1233. 
v.  Robertson,  31  Md.  476,  868. 

880. 
v.  R.  R.  Co..  49  N.  Y.  455:  698, 

701,  704,  915. 
v.  Southern  Mut.  B.  &  L.  Ass'n. 

97  Ga.  622:  492.  523,  566. 
v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  117  Fed. 

462,  695.  747,  921. 
v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  117  Fed. 

462,  1060. 
v.  State,  91  Ala.  70:  620. 
v.  State,  132  Ala.  43:  468. 
v.  State,  33  Miss.  363,  1121. 
v.  State,  59  N.  J.  L.  271:  577, 

580. 
v.  State,  59  N.  J.  L.  535:  577, 

580. 
v.  Stout,  42  Minn.  514:  1056. 
v.  Tautphaus,  127  Cal.  605:  57&  . 
v.  Turnell,  113  Wis.  468:  1138. 
v.  Upham,  2  E.  &  E.  250:  649. 
v.  Winslow,  63  N.  C.  552:  577. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


CXX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-ri5. 


Johnson's  Adm'x  v.  Haldeman,  102 

Ky.  163:  773. 
Johnston  v.  Bank,  3  Strob.  Eq.263: 
621. 
v.  Ban-ills,  27  Ore.  251:    1058, 

1060,  1201. 
v.  Pate,  95  N.  C.  63:  1149. 
v.  Rankin,  70  N.  C.  550:  1056. 
v.  Spicer,  107  N.  Y.  185:  250. 
v.  State,  100  Ala.  32:  142. 
v.  Wilson,  29  Gratt.  379:  869. 
v.  Wood,  19  Wash.  441:  304. 
Johnston's  Estate,  33  Pa.  St.  511: 

473,  521. 
John  V.  Farwell  Co.  v.  Matheis,  48 

Fed.  363:  105,  107. 
Jollie  v.  Jaques,  1  Blatch.  618:  1142. 
Jolliffe  v.  Brown,  14  Wash.  155:  304. 
Jonas  v.  Cincinnati,  18  Ohio,  318: 

1009,  1011. 
Jones,  In  re,  7  Ex.  586:  801 
Jones  v.  Alexander,  10  S.  &  M.  627: 
1254. 
v.  Aspen  Hardware  Co.,  21  Colo. 

263:  199,  279. 
v.  Black,  48  Ala.  540:  177. 
v.  Brown,  2  Ex.  332:  929. 
v.  Cavins,  4  Ind.  305:  317. 
v.  Collins,    16    Wis.    594:    644, 

1096. 
v.  Columbus,  25  Ga.  610:  231. 
v.  Commissioner,  21  Mich.  236: 

432,  435. 
v.  Dexter,  8  Fla.  270:  788,  930. 
v.  Falvella,  126  CaL  24:  300. 
v.  German  Ins.  Co.,  110  Iowa, 

75:  1304 
v.  Hays,  4  McLean,  521:  613, 

865. 
v.  Hutchinson,  43  Ala.  721:  52, 

71,  78,  87,  867. 
v.  Jones,  95  Ala.  443:  339. 
v.  Jones,  18  Me.  308:  750. 
v.  Jones,  104  N.  Y.  234:  592. 


Jones  v.  Kearns,  Mart.  &  Y.  241: 

630. 
v.  Lake  View,  151  111.  663:  231. 
v.  Madison   Co.,  72  Miss.  777: 

176. 
v.  Maffet,  5  S.  &  R.  523:  618, 

619. 
v.  Mail  &   Exp.    Fub.    Co.,   80 

Hun,  368:  694,  736,  797. 
v.  McCaskill,  112  Ga.  453:  176. 

342. 
v.  Melchior,  71  Miss.  115:  469. 
v.  Memphis,  101  Tenn.  183:  596. 
v.  Morristown,  66  N.  J.  L.  488: 

201,  292,  582,  652. 
v.  Robbins,  8  Gray,  329:  595. 
v.  Smart,  1  T.  R.  44:  1109,1111. 
v.  Smith,  3  Gray,  500:  938. 
v.  Smith,  14  Mich.  334:  1054. 
v.  State,  1  Ga.  610:  1182. 
v.  State,  1  Iowa,  395:  558,  679. 
v.  State,  1  Kan.  273:  1116, 1124. 
v.  State,   32   Tex.    Crim.   Rep. 

533:  1302. 
v.  Surprise,  64  N.  H.  243:  688, 

1064. 
v.  Tatham,  20  Pa.  St,  398:  627, 

931,  937. 
v.  Theall,  3  Nev.  233:  111. 
v.  Thompson,  12  Bush,  391:  254, 

581. 
v.  Water  Com'rs,  34  Micb.  273: 

710. 
v.  Wootten,  1   Harr.  (Del.)  77: 

640,  683. 
Jones'  Appeal,  3  Grant,  169:  669. 
Jones'  Heirs  v.    Cooper,  10  Yerg. 

59:  13. 
Joplin  v.  S.  W.  Mo.  Light  Co.,  191 

U.  S.  150:  1023. 
Jordan  v.  Board  of  Education,  39 

Minn.  298:  1257. 
v.  Dobson,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.)  398: 

1220. 


I' XXIV 


TAi:i,K    ()!■•    CASKS    CITED. 


:  •  t    the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-co.i;  Vol.  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


ii  v.  Qiblin,  12  Cat  100:  1050. 
v.  Wimer,  r>  Iowa,  85,  640. 
n's  A.lm'r  v.  Cincinatti,  etc 
Ry.  Ca,  89  Ky.  40:  129& 
Jordt  v.  state.  31  Tex  571:  B59. 

nson  v.  Superior,  111  Wis.  561: 

ii  v.  Elliott.  47  Mo.  App.  418: 
834 
Journeay  v.  Gibson,  56  Pa.  St.  57: 

1229. 
Judd  v.  Falton,  10  Barb.  117:  320. 

v.  Judd,  125  Mich.  228:  1225. 
Judge  of  Co.  Ct.  v.  Taylor,  8  Bush, 

206:  1009,  1011. 
Judkins  v.  Tuffee,  21  Ore.  89:  1226. 
Judson  v.  Bessemer,  87  Ala.  240: 
190,  243,  432. 
v.  Leach,  7  Cow.  152:  639. 
v.  Smith,  104  Mo.  61 :  1058, 1060. 
Juilliard  v.  May,  130  111.  87:  21. 
Juliand  v.  Rathbone,  39  N.  Y.  369: 

1144. 
Jul  i  en  v.  Mo  J  el  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  116 
Wis.  79:  137,  216,  304,  365,  370,  445, 
524. 
Julius  v.  Bishop  of  Oxford,  LR5 
A  i  .p.   Cas.   214:  1146,   1149. 
v.  Callahan,  63  Minn.  154:  189. 
Jump  v.  Batton,  35  Mo.  196:   117. 
Junction  City  v.  Webb,  44  Kan.  71: 

Junction  Railroad  Ca  v.  Bank  of 
Ashland,   12   Wall.  226:    41,  613, 

Justices  v.  Oriffin,  etc  Plank  R.  Co., 
9  Ga.  475:  1021,  1025 

K. 

Kadgin  v.  Miller,  13  III.  App.  474: 

1265. 
Kagit  Co.  v.  Stiles,  10  Wash.  388: 

577. 


Kamerick  v.  Castleman,  21  Mo.  App. 

587:  443,  444. 
Kameta,  Ex  parte,  36  Ore.  251:  766. 
Kampton  v.  Commonwealth,  19  Pa. 

St.  329:  20. 
Kane  v.  Kansas  City,  etc  Ry.  Co., 
112   Mo.  34:   722,  846,  851, 
909. 
v.  New  York,  etc  Ry.  Co.,  49 

Conn.  139:  446. 
v.  State,  78  Ind.  103:  291. 
Kankakee  Co.  v.  JEtna,  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  106  U.  S.  668:  529. 
Kaunas  Breeze  Co.  v.  Edwards,  55 

Kan.  030:  468. 
Kansas  City  v.  Kansas  City  Med. 
College,  111  Mo.  141:  1007. 
v.   Kimball,  60  Kan.  224:  466, 

467,  511,  524. 
v.  Lorber,  64  Mo.  App.  604: 1010, 

1028. 
v.  Scarritt,  127  Mo.  642:  134. 
v.  Smart,  128  Mo.  272:  469. 
v.  Stegmiller,  151  Mo.  189:  373, 

386,  437. 
v.  Summerwell,  58  Mo.  App.  246: 

1053. 
v.  Vindquest,  36  Mo.  App.  584: 
769. 
Kansas  City,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 62  Mo.  585:  1048. 
v.  Frey,  30  Neb.  790:  185,  191. 
Kansas  City  Hydraulic  P.  B.  Co.  v. 

Barber,  50  Mo.  App.  60:  847. 

Kansas    Pacific    Ry.    Co.   v.   Dun- 

meyer,  113  U.  S.  629:  1026. 

v.  Lundin,  3  Colo.  94:  1292. 

v.  Wyandotte,  16  Kan.  587:  670. 

Kaolatype  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke, 

30  Fed.  Rep.  444:  878. 
Karasek  v.  Peier,  22  Wash.  419:  43, 

176,  307,  774. 
Karr   v.   Washburn,  56   Wis.  303: 
1096. 


TABLE   OF   OASES   CITED. 


CXXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-C03:  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Kate  Heron,  The,  6  Sawyer,  106: 

748,  757,  864. 
Kaufman  v.  Schoeffel,  37  Hun,  140: 

1296. 
Kaufman's  Will,   131    N.  Y.   620: 

775. 
Kavanagh's   Will,   Matter  of,  125 

N.  Y.  418:  792. 
Kean  v.  Stetson,  5  Pick.  492:  1044. 
Kearney  v.    Fitzgerald,   43   Iowa, 

580:  1273,  1274,  1275, 1276. 
Kearney  Co.  Com'rs  v.   Vandries, 

115  Fed.  866:  340. 
Kearney  Elec.  Co.  v.  Laughlin,  45 

Neb.  390:  1291. 
Keavus  v.  Cordwainers'  Co.,  6  G 

B.  (N.  S.)  388:  654,  655,657. 
Keech  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

17  Md.  32:  862. 
Keemer  v.  Herr,  98  Pa.  St.  6:  1056. 
Keen  v.  De  Lancy,  5  Cranch,  22: 

621. 
Keenan   v.  Stimson,  32  Minn.  377: 

28. 
Keene  v.   Jefferson  Co.,   135  Ala. 

465:  85,  86,  128. 
Keep  v.  Crawford,  92  111.  App.  587: 

517. 
Keeton    v.    Keeton,   20    Mo.    530: 

1279. 
Kehl  v.  Dunn,  102  Mich.  581:  1260. 
Keim  v.  Devitt,  3  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  250: 

430. 
Kein    v.   School    District,   42  Mo. 

App.  460:  954,  1262. 
Keith  v.  Clark,  97   U.  S.  454:  37. 
v.  Quinney,  1  Ore.  364:  711,  729, 
864,  885. 
Keitler  v.  State,  4  Greene  (Iowa), 

291:  1051. 
Keller  v.   Commonwealth,  71  Pa. 
St.  413:  534. 
v.  Corpus  Christi,  50  Tex.  614; 
1049,  1056. 


Keller  v.  Houlihan,  32  Minn.  486: 

1154. 

v.  State,  11  Md,  531:  185,  963. 

v.  State,  12  Md.  325:  552,  555. 

Kelley  v.  Burke,  132  Ala.  235:  702. 

v.  May  berry,   154  Pa.   St.  440: 

303. 
v.  Minneapolis  City,  57  Minn. 

294:  301. 
v.  Multnomah  Co.,  18  Ore.  356: 

890. 
v.  People,  132  111.  363:  992. 
v.  State,  6   Ohio  St.    269:  348, 

355,  592,  598. 
v.  Stevenson,    85    Minn.     247: 

1297. 
v.  Story,  6  Heisk.  202:  880. 
Kellock's  Case,   L.    R.    3  Ch.  781: 

930. 
Kellogg,    Ex    parte,   3  Cow.    372: 

1121. 
Kellogg  v.  Hickman,  12  Colo.  256: 
1290. 
v.  Oshkosh,  14  Wis.  623:457. 
v.  Page,  44  Vt.  856:  1115. 
Kellogg  Newspaper  Co.  v.  Peterson, 

162  111.  138:  1058. 
Kelly  v.  Canon,  6  Colo.  App.  465: 
1165,  1296. 
v.  McGuire,  15  Ark.  555:  794. 
v.  Meeks,  87  Mo.  396:  159. 
y.  Northern  Trust  Co.,  190  111. 

401:  781. 
v.  People,  115  111.  583:  1185. 
v.  Pratt,  14  Misc.  31:  306. 
v.  School  Directors,  66  III.  App. 

134:  530,  538. 
v.  State,  92  Ind.  236:  339. 
Kelly's  Heirs  v.  McGuire,  15  Ark. 

555:  659,  712,  731. 
Kelly  Tp.  v.  Union  Tp.,  5  Watts  & 

S.  535:  636,  914. 
Kelsey  v.  Kendall,  48  Vt.  24:  443, 
643. 


CXXV1 


TABLE   01    I   \m  S   Oil  ED. 


The  refetviuvs  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  1.  pp.  I  808;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-11515. 


Kemble  v.  MoPhaill,  103  CaL  441: 
1164 

Kemoys.   Matter  of,  56  Hun,    117: 

116ft 
Kenastoa  v.  Great  Northern   Ry. 

.  59  Minn.  33:  505. 
Kendall  v.  Dodge,  3  Vt.  360:  19. 
v.  Garneau.  55  Neb.  403:  784. 
v.  United  States,  12  Pet  524: 
78ft 
Kenealy  v.  Leavy,  67  N.  J.  L.  433: 

98a 
Kenefick  v.  St.  Louis,   127  Mo.  1: 

373. 
Kenfield  v.  Irwin,  52  Cal.164:  1124. 
Kennedy,  In  re,  2  S.  C.  216:  1201. 
Kennedy  v.  Adams,  24  Nev.  217: 
1283. 
v.   Agricultural  Ins.   Co.,   165 

Pa.  St.  179:  416. 
v.  Cunningham,  2   Met.   (Ky.) 

94ft 
v.   Des  Moines,   84  Iowa,  187: 

1158,  1160,1167. 
v.   First   Nat.    Bank.  107   Ala. 

170:  1258. 
v.  (iies,  25  Mich.  83:  723. 
v.  Kennedy,  2  Ala.  571:729. 
v.   LeMoyne,  188   111.  255:  223, 

224,  234. 
v.  Montgomery   Co.,  98  Tenn. 

165:  301 
v.  Palmer,  6    Gray,   316:   320, 

321,  607. 
v.  Pawtucket,  24  R  L  461:  158. 
v.  Savage,  13  Mont.  119:  464. 
Kenneys,  Matter  of,  56  Hun,  117: 

308. 
Kenny  v.  Clarkson,  1  John.  385:  620. 
Kent  v.  Clark,  181  111.  237:  736. 

v.  Somervell,  7  Gill  &  J.  265: 

657. 
v.  United  States,  68  Fed.  536: 
51 9. 


Kent  v.  United  States,  73  Fed.  6S0: 
519. 
v.  Warner,  47  Hun,  474:  1830. 
Kenton    v.  State,  52  Ohio  St.  59: 

382. 
Kent/,  v.  Mobile,  120  Ala.  623:  57& 
Kephart  v.  Farmers',  etc.  Rank,  4 

Mich.  002:  910. 
Keppel    v.    Petersburg   R   R    Co., 

Chase's  Dec.  167:  871. 
Kerkow  v.  Bauer,  15  Neb.  150:  876, 

1274. 
Kerlin  v.  Bull.  1  Dall.  (Pa.)  175:  912, 

914. 
Kerlinger  v.  Barnes,  14  Minn.  526: 

443. 
Kermott  v.  Ayer,  11  Mich.  181:  610. 
K.  in  v.  Browne,  64  Pa.  St.  55:  1237. 
v.  People,  44  111.  App.  181:  467, 

509. 
v.  Supreme    Council,   167    Mo. 
471:  683,  1005. 
Kerney  v.  Barber  Asphalt  Pa  v.  Co., 

86  Mo.  App.  37:3:  730. 
Kern  ion  v.  Hills,  1  La.  Ann.  419: 

892,  893. 
Kerr,  Matter  of,  42  Barb.  119:  119*4 
Kerr  v.  Haverstick,  94  Ind.  180:  331. 
Kerrigan  v.  Force,  9  Hun,  185:  625. 
v.  Force,  68  N.  Y.  381:  345,  402, 
633,  928. 
Kersten  v.  Voight,  61  111.  App.  42: 

1158,  1191. 
Kesler  v.  Smith,  66  N.  C.  154:  511. 
Kessel  v.  Albetis,  56  Barb.  362:  606, 

305. 
Kesterson  v.  Hill,  101  Va.  739:  1160. 
Ketcham  v.  Fox,  52  Hun,  284:  1205. 
Ketle  v.  Reading  Iron  Works,  134 

Pa.  St.  225:  1226. 
Keyes  v.  Westford,  17  Pick.  273: 

10:3:3. 
Keyner,  Matter  of,  148  N.  Y.  219: 

424. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315.- 


Keyport    St.   B.   Co.    v.    Farmers' 

Transportation  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq. 

13:  870,  874,  882. 
Kibbe  v.  Ditto,  93  U.  S.  674:  506. 
Kick  v.  Doerste,  45  Mo.  App.  134: 

1225. 
Kiel  v.  Chicago,  69  111.  App.  685: 

981. 
Kieldsen  v.  "Wilson,  77  Mich.  45: 

1258. 
Kielley  v.  Carson,  4  Moore  P.  C.  85: 

30. 
Kiernan,  In  re,  6  T.  &  C.  320:  243. 

v.  Swan,  131  Cal.  410:  597. 
Kiersted  v.  State,  1  G.  &  J.  231:  889. 
Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S. 

168:  17,  867,  1051. 
Kilburn   v.  Demming,  2  Vt  404: 

1099. 
Kile  v.  Yellowhead,  80  111.  208:  872. 
Kilgore  v.  Magee,  85  Pa.  St.  401:  59, 

377,  383,  925. 
Kilgour  v.  Miles,  6  Gill  &  J.  268:  337. 
Killebrew  v.  Murphy,  3  Heisk.  546: 

871. 
Kilpatrick  v.  Byrne,  25  Miss.  571: 

1015. 
Kimball  v.  Davis,  52  Mo.  App.  194: 
23,  26,  988. 
v.  Grantsville    City,   19  Utah, 

368:  132,  133,  137. 
v.  Masons'  Fraternal  Aco.  Ass'n, 

90  Me.  183:  1158,  1191. 
v.  Rosendale,  42  Wis.  407:  402. 
Kimbray  v.  Draper,  L.  R  3  Q.  B. 

160:  642,  1225,  1226. 
Kimbrov.  Bank  of  Fulton,  49  Ga. 

419:  665. 
Kimbrough  v.  Barnett,  93  Tex.  301: 

577,  587. 
Kimm  v.  Osgood,  19  Mo.  60:  328, 329. 
Kinard  v.  Moore,  3  Strob.  193:  1005. 
Kindergarten    Schools,    In   re,   18 

Colo.  234:  13,  132. 


Kinderley  v.  Jervis,  25  L.  J.  Ch. 

541:  699,703. 
Kine  v.  Crider,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  688: 

815. 
King,  Ex  parte,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  158: 

627. 
King  v.   Adderley,   2    Doug.   463: 
329. 
v.  Arundel,   Hob.    110:    48,  81. 
v.  Banks,  61  Ga.  20:  245,  261. 
v.  Belcher,  30  S.  C.  381:  1161, 

1283,  1284. 
v.  Birmingham,  8  B.  &  C.  29: 

939. 
v.  Bridges,  8  East,  53:  481. 
v.  Burridge,  3   P.  Wms.    496: 

G24. 
v.  Cornell,  106  U.  S.  395:  515. 
v.  Davis,  1   Leach's  Cas.    271: 

481. 
v.  Dedham  Bank,  15  Mass.  447: 

1193. 
v.  Bowdall,  2  Sandf.  131:  335. 
v.  Downs,  3  T.  R.  569:  469. 
v.  Haley,  86  111.  106:  1267. 
v.  Herefordshire,    3    Barn.   & 

Aid.  581:  330. 
v.  Kent,  29  Ala.  542:  872. 
v.  Moore,  Jeff.  (Va.)  8:  321. 
v.  Pease,   4  B.  &  Ad.  30:  754, 

794. 
v.  Philadelphia  Co.,  154  Pa.  St. 

160:  178. 
v.  Pony  Gold  Min.  Co.,  24  Mont. 

470:  429,  447. 
v.  Thompson,   87  Pa,   St.   365: 

821. 
v.  Thurston,  1  Lev.  91:  311. 
v.  Welborn,  83  Mich.  195:  1261. 
v.  Wilcox,  1  Sim.  (N.  S.)  301: 

25. 
v.  Wilson,  1  Dill.  555:  614. 
Kingman    et  al.,  Petitioners,    156 
Mass.  361:  710,721. 


CJLSV1U  TABLE   OF   Casks   OIlli'. 

Tlu-  rt'f.Mviu.s  iiro  to  the  |'ft«es:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  BOS;  Vol.  II,  pp,  005-1315. 


Km',  Est,   Ass'n   v.  Portland, 
ire,  190:  11:.  I. 
Kings  Co,  v.  Johnson,  104  CaL  198: 

King's  Estate,  In  re,  105  Iowa,  320: 
-us.  ooft 

Kingsford  v.  Great  \V.  Ry.  Co.,  16 
G  K  (N.  BL)761:  1097. 

Kind's  Lake  D.  &  L.  Dist  v.  Jami- 
son. 170  Mo.  557:  073. 

Kingaley  v.  Kingsley,  20  111.  203: 
010,  62a 

Kinkead  v.  United  States,  150  U.  S. 

65a 

Kinney  v.  Mallory,  3  Ala.  626:  462, 

405. 
Kmsey  v.  Eilerman,  110  Ky.  948: 

125a 

v.  Hey  ward,  1  Lord  Raym.  434: 

Kipp  v.  Robinson,  75  Minn.  1:  1137, 

1138. 
Kirly  v.  Runals,  140  111.  289:  781, 

899,  900. 
Kirclmer  v.  Myers,  35  Ohio  St.  85: 

1271. 
KircholT  v.  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co., 

•  111.  199:  757. 
Kirk  v.  Armstrong,  Hempst.  283: 
1136. 
v.  Robinson,  25  Ky.  L.  R.  1633: 
. 
Kirkpatrick  v.  Commonwealth,  95 
Ky.  326:  497. 
v.  Gibson,  2  Brock.  388:    784, 

v.  Lewis,  46  Minn.  164:  792. 
v.  Mo.  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co.,  k71  Mo. 

A  pp.  263:  409. 
v.  New  Brunswick,  40  N.  J.  Eq. 
46:  321,  287. 
Kirksey  v.  Rowe,  114  Ga.  893:  1259. 
Kirkstall  Brewery,  In  re,  5  Ch.  Div. 


Kirinan  v.  Powning,  25  Nev.  378: 

786. 
Kiskaddon  v.  Dodds,  21  Pa.  Supr. 

Ct.  351:  1231. 

Kistler  v.  Hereth,  75  Ind.  177: 1282. 

Kitchen  v.  Bartsch,  7  East,  53:  892. 

v.  Shaw,  6  Ad.  &  K  729:  81d 

v.  Smith,  101  Pa.  St.  452:  4G1. 

Kleckner  v.  Turk,  45  Neb.  170:  231, 

986. 
Klein  v.  Bayer,  81  Mich.  233:  1161, 
1191. 
v.  Kinkead,  16  Nev.  194:  221, 

262. 
v.  Livingston  Club,  177  Pa.  St. 

224:  964,  973. 
v.  State  Treas.,  42  La.  Ann.  174: 
^07. 
Kline  v.  Baker,  99  Mass.  258:  017, 

618,  622. 
Kling  v.  Packet  Co.,  101  Tenn.  99: 

415. 
Knapp  v.  Brooklyn,  97  N.  Y.  520: 
788. 
v.  Kansas  City,  48  Mo.  App.  485: 
1028. 
Knaust,  In  re.  101  N.  Y.  188:  204. 
Kneeland  v.   Milwaukee,    15   Wis. 

454:  904. 
Knight  v.  Aroostook  R,  R  Co.,  67 
Me.  291:  517. 
v.  Bate,  2  Cowp.  738:  127a 
v.   Freeholders,  10  Cent.  Rep. 

653:  930. 
v.  Lee,  L.  R.  (1893)  1  Q.  B.  41: 

1160. 
v.  Martin,  128  Cal.  245:  408. 
v.  West  Jersey  R  R,  Co.,  108 
Pa.  St.  250:  28. 
Knight's  Templars  &  M.  L.  J.  Co.  v. 
Jar  man,  187  U.  S.   197:  40,  136, 
304,  614. 
Kniper  v.   Louisville,  7  Bush.  599: 
1009. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


CXX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  VoL  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Knisely  v.  Cotterel,  196  Pa.  St.  614: 

423,  455. 
Knopf  v.  People,  135  111.  20:  339. 
Knoup  v.  Piqua  Bank,  1  Ohio  St. 

C03:  549,  561. 
Knowlton  v.  Moore,  178  U.  S.  41: 

649,  707,  885. 
Knox  v.  Baldwin,  80  N.  Y.610:  516, 
545,  561. 
v.    Cleveland,    13    Wis.     249: 
121S. 
Knox  Co.    Com'rs.  v.  McComb,   19 

Ohio  St.  320:  488. 
Knox  Street,  12  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  534: 

5G5. 
Knoxville   v.  Lewis,    12  Lea,  180: 

202,  254. 
Knoxville,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris, 
99    Tenn.    634:    414,   1003, 
1006. 
v.  Hicks,  9  Baxt.  442:  12. 
Koch  v.  Bridges,  45  Miss.  247:  471, 
701,  920,  1138. 
v.  New  York,  5  App.  Div.  276: 
13,  132. 
Koehler,   Ex    parte,  23  Fed.   529: 

1195. 
Koelesch  v.  New  York,  34  App.  Div. 

98:  135. 
Koen  v.  State,  35  Neb.  676:  770. 
Koerner  v.  Oberly,  56  Ind.  284:  1265. 
Koester  v.  Com'rs,  44  Kan.  141:  404. 
Koetting,  In  re,  90  Wis.  166:  447. 
Kohler,  Ex  parte,  74  Cal.  38:  300. 
Kohn   v.  Carrollton,   10  La.  Ann. 
719:  432. 
v.  Collison,  1  Marvel  (Del.),  109: 
105?,  1062,  1293,  1294. 
Kolb      v.      Reformed      Episcopal 
Church,  18  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  477:  955. 
Kollock   v.  Parcher,  25  Wis.  372: 

1055.  1258. 
Koning  v.  Bayard,  2  Paine,   251: 
933. 


Koontz  v.  Franklin  Co.,  76  Pa.  St 
754:  1194. 
v.  Howsare,  100  Pa.  St.  506:  849. 
Korah  v.  Ottawa,  32  I1L  121:  490. 
Koser,  Ex  parte,  60  CaL  187:  401, 

420. 
Kossuth  Co.  v.  Wallace,  60  Iowa, 

508:  1184 
Kountze  v.  Omaha,  5  Dill  443:  615, 
925. 
v.  Omaha,  63  Neb.  52:  528,  529. 
Krach    v.    Heilman,   53    Ind.  517: 

1270,  1271. 
Kramer  v.  Goodlander,  98  Pa.  St. 
353:  979. 
v.  Holster,  55  Miss.  243:  1050. 
Krause  v.  Durbrow,  127  Cal.  681: 
340. 
v.  Penn.   R.  R.  Co.,   19  Phila. 
436:  455,  1226. 
Kreiger  v.  Shelby  R.  R.  Co.,  84  Ky. 

66:  1036. 
Kreiter  v.  Nichols,  28  Mich.  496: 

1265. 
Kretzeschmar  v.  Meehan,  74  Minn. 

211:  469. 
Kreyling  v.  O'Reilly,  97  Mo.  App. 

384:  730,  1283,  1285. 
Knng  v.  Missouri,  107  U.S.  221: 

1174,  1175,  1177. 
Kroop   v.  Forman,   31   Mich.    144: 

1141. 
Kruse  v.  Kennett,  69  111.  App.  566: 

963. 
Kuckler  v.  People,  5  Park.  Cr.  R. 

212:  1187. 
Kuenster  v.  Board  of  Education, 

134  111.  165:  527. 
Kuhlman   v.   Smeltz,  171  Pa.  St. 

440:  470. 
Kuhns  v.  Krammis,   20  Ind.  490: 

254. 
Kulpv.  Fleming,  65  Ohio  St  321: 
23,  988. 


cxxx 


1  Al'.I.K    <M-     0  \SI  s    i'l  I'El). 


an  to  the  pages:  Vol  I.  pp,  1  608;  Vol  n,  vv-  005-1315. 


Kulp  v.  Luzerne  Oa,  80  Va.  Bupr. 

Ct  7:   470. 

Kumler   v.    Supervisors,   108  CaL 

803:  157. 
Eunkle  v.  Franklin,  13  Minn.  107: 

64a 
Kupfert  v.  Building  Ass'n,  30  Pa. 

St  165:  685 
Kyle  v.  Mai  in.  8  Ind.  34:1033. 

L. 

La  Arba  Silver  Mia  Co.  v.  U.  S.  175 

U.  S.  423:  104. 
Lacey  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159:  201, 

207,  294,  953. 
Lachman  v.  Ottawa  Circuit  Judge, 

125  Mich,  27:  1203. 
Lackawana  Iron  Co.  v.  Little  Wolf, 

38  Wis.  152:  1117. 
Laokawann  Tp.,  In  re,  1G0  Pa  St. 

491:  268. 
Lackawana  Tp.  v.  Harris  Tp.,  1G0 

Pa.  St.  494:  383. 
Lackland  v.  Davenport,  84  Va,  638: 
1225. 
v.  Walker,  151  Mo.  210:  G5 4, 655. 
Lacon  v.  Higgins,  3  Stark.  178:  617, 

618. 
Ladd  v.  Gambell,  35  Ore.  393:  466. 
v.  Holmes,  40  Ore.  167:  388. 
v.  Portland,  32  Ore.  271:  1215. 
Lafayette  v.  Cox,  5  Ind.  38:  1033. 
Lafferty  v.  Huffman,  99  Ky.  80:  6G, 
77,  571. 
v.  I:y.  Co.,  71  Mich.  35:  420. 
La  France  v.  Krayer,  42  Iowa,  1 13: 

127:5. 
La  Grange  v.  Chapman,   11  Mich. 
872. 
v.  Cutler,  6  Ind  354:  GG?. 
Lair  v.  Killmer,  1   Dutch.  522:  645. 
v.  Killmer,  25  X.  J.  L  522:  964, 
905. 


Lake  v.  Caddo  Parish,  37  La.  Ann* 
788:  710. 
v.  Ocean  City,  62  N.  J.  L.  160: 

95. 
v.  State,  18  Fla.  501:  446. 
v.  Williamsburgh,  4  Denio.  520: 
100ft 
Lake  Erie  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Walkins, 

157  Ind.  600:  552. 
Lakeman  v.  Moore,  32  N.  H.  410: 

681. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Grand 
Rapids,  102  Mich.  374:  1004.  1006. 
Lake  Superior  Ship  Canal,  Ry.  & 
Co.     v.     Aplin,     79    Mich.     351: 
469. 
Lamar  v.  Adams,  90  Mo.  App.  35: 
4G9. 
v.  Allen,  108  Ga.  158:  543. 
v.  Micou,   114   U.    S.  218:   613, 
866. 
Lamar  Canal  Co.  v.  Amity  Land  & 

I rr.  Co.,  26  Colo.  370:  300. 
Lamar  Water  &  E.  L.  Co.  v.  Lamar. 

128  Mo.  188:  909,  912,  914. 
Lamb,  Matter  of.  51  Hun,  633:  1232 
Lamb  v.  Dunwody,  94  Ga.  58:  1299. 
v.  Lynd.  44  Pa.  St.  336:  1029. 
v.  Schottler,  54  Cal.  319:   553, 
1169. 
Lambe    v.  McCormick,    116    Iowa, 

169:  466,  467. 
Lambertson  v.  Hagan,  2  Pa.  St.  25: 

19,  635,  640. 
Lambie's  Estate,  94  Mich.  489:  764. 
Lambkin  v.  Pike.  115  Ca.  827:  516. 
Lammer,  In  re,  7  Biss.  269:  1005. 
Lamond  v.  Eiffe,  3  Q.  B.  910:  916. 
Lampbear  v.  Buckingham,  33  Conn. 

237:  908. 
Lampkin  v.  Pike.  115  Ga.  827:  435. 

v.  State,  87  Ga.  516:  124. 
Lampson,  Matter  of,  22  Misc.  198: 
568. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


CXXXl 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Lampton  v.  Haggard,  3  T.  B.  Mon. 

149:  878. 
Lancashire  Ins.    Co.   v.    Bush,  60 

Neb.  116:  479. 
Lancaster  v.  Knight,  74  App.  Div. 

255:  557. 
Lancaster  Co.  v.  Hoagland,  8  Neb. 
36:  434. 
v.  Lancaster  City,  160  Pa.  St. 

411:  739,  797. 
v.  Trimble,  33  Neb.  121:  429. 
v.  Trimble,  34  Neb.  752:  771. 
Lance's  Appeal,  55  Pa.  St.  16:  1041. 
Lancy   v.   King  Co.,  15  Wash.   9: 

191,  205. 
Landauer  v.  Conklin,  3  S.  D.  462: 

749. 
Landers  v.  Staten  Island  R.  R.  Co., 

14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  346:  1053. 
Landfield,  Matter  of,  182  111.  264: 

846. 
Landford  v.  Dunklin,  71  Ala.  594: 

778. 
Land  Grant  Railway  v.  Commis- 
sioners, 6  Kan.  252:  23. 
Landis  v.  Landis,  39  N.  J.  L.  274: 

459,  511. 
Land  L  &  L.  Co.  v.  Brown,  73  Wis. 
294:  394. 
v.  Mclntyre,  100  Wis.  245:  776. 
Landrum   v.   Flannigan,   60  Kan. 

436:  693,  699,  707,  717,  736. 
Land  Title  W.  &  S.  Co.  v.  Tanner, 

99  Ga.  470:  201. 
Lane  v.   Bennett,  1  M.  &  W.  70: 
1109. 
v.  Burnap,  39  Mich.  736:  1141. 
v.  Cary.  19  Barb.  539:  1305. 
v.  Nelson,  79  Pa.  St.  407:  1217, 

1226,  1233. 
v.  Schomp,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  82:  799. 
v.  State,  49  N.  J.  L.  673:  252. 
v.  Wheeler,  101  N.  Y.  17:  1136. 
v.  White,  140  Pa.  St.  99:  1226. 


Lane's  Appeal,  105  Pa.  St.  49:  1019. 
Lanfear  v.  Mestier,18  La.  Ann.  497: 

872. 
Lang  v.  Calloway,  68  Mo.  App.  393: 
436,  439,  847. 
v.  Phillips,  27  Ala.  311:  320. 
v.  Scott,  1  Blackf.  405:  633, 917. 
Langdean  v.  Hanes,  21  Wall.  521: 

34. 
Langdon  v.  Summers,  10  Ohio  St. 
79:  1056. 
v.  Young,  33  Vt.  136:  611. 
Lange,  In  re,  C5  N.  Y.  307:  1141. 
Langenberg  v.    Decker,   131   Ind. 

471:  5,6,  10. 
Langley  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

88  Ga.  777:  972. 
Languille  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  312: 

643. 
Lankford  v.  County  Com'rs.,  73  Md. 
105:  104,  109,  341. 
v.  Gebhart,  130  Mo.  621:  1130, 
1145,  1290. 
Lanning  v.  Carpenter,  20  N.  Y.  447: 

605,  608. 
Lansing  v.  Board  of  State  Audit- 
ors, 111  Mich.  327:  267. 
Lanzetti's  Succession,  9  La.  Ann. 

333:  193,  202. 
Lapeyse  v.  United  States,  17  Wall. 

191:  607. 
Lapham  v.  Marshall,  51  Hun,  36: 

1159,  1164. 
La  Plaisance  Bay  Harbor  Co.  v. 

Monroe,  Walk.  Ch.  (Mich.)  155: 

1022. 
La  Plume  v.  Gardner,  148  Pa.  St. 

192:  288. 
Laporte  v.  Gamewell  Fire  Alarm 

&  Tel.  Co.,  146  Ind.  466:  784. 
Larabee  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R. 

Co.,  182  Mass.  348:  700. 
Largey  v.  Chapman,  18  Mont.  563: 

784. 


I 


iAI'.I.K   OF   CASKS    CITED. 


•  to  iiu'  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  l-cos;  Vol  ii,  pp.  C05-1815. 


Larimer  Ditoh  Co.  v.  Zimmerman, 

•I  Colo.  A|.p.  78:  698,719,770,885. 
Larkin,  Ex  parte,  1  Okl.  53:  1179. 
Larrabee  v.  Talbott,5GUl,486:813, 

Larrieon  v,  Peoria,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 

77  111.  11:  84,  98,  2 14.  008. 
Larxselere  v.  Haubert,  109  Pa,  St» 

515: 
La  Selle  v.  Whitfield,  13  La.  Ann. 

Bl:  931. 
Lash  v.  Von  Xeida,  109  Pa.  St.  207: 

938. 
Lasher  v.  People,  183  III.  226:  370, 

426. 
La  Societe  Francaise,  etc.,  Matter 

of.  123  Cal.  525:  158,  842. 

n  v.  Karrer,  117  Mich  512:  816. 
Lasure   v.  State,   19  Ohio  St.  43: 

1 1 B2 
Latino],  v.  Mills,   19  Cal.  013:  592, 

COO. 

3S  v.  Holmes,  4  T.  R.  660:  311, 

312. 
Laude  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  33 

Wis.  640:  44:;.  415,  561, 
Lauer  v.  District  of  Columbia,  11 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.i  453:  991, 
992,  993. 
v.  Suite,  22  Ind.  461:  228. 
Laughlin    v.    Commonwealth,    13 

Bush.  261:  550,  1180. 
Laughter  v.  Seela,  59  Tex.  177:  852. 
Lau  0\v  Bew  v.  United  States,  111 

U.  S.  47:  730,  743.  914. 
Laura,  The.  114  U.  S.  411:  890. 
Laurence  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim. 

Rep.  601:  1180. 
Laurens  v.  Crawford,  55  S.  C.  594: 

Laave's  Succession,  6  La.  Ann.  529: 

Lavigne  v.  Lizeri  des  Patriotes,  178 
Mass  25:  760. 


Law  v.  Hodson,  11  East,  300:  938. 
v.  Law,  Cas.  Temp.  Talb.  140: 
1105. 
Lawder  v.  Stone,  187  U.  S.  281 :  880. 
Lawrence  v.   Allen,  7  How.  785: 
754 
v.  Grambling,  13  S.  C.  125:  447. 
v.  Hanley,  84  Mich.  399:  1300. 
v.  King,  L.  R,  3  Q.  B.  345:  777. 
v.  Louisville,  96  Ky.  595:   1287. 
Lawrence  Co.  v.  Meade  Co.,  6  S.  D. 
528:  G94,  717,  723,  751. 
v.  New  Castle.  18  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 
313:  545,  1225. 
Lawrence  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mahoning 

Co..  35  Ohio  St.  1:  1226. 
Lawson  v.  De  Bolt, 78  Ind.  563:  435, 
517. 
v.  Jeffries,  47  Miss.  686:  343, 
Lawton  v.  Steele,   119  N.  Y.  226: 
579. 
v.  Waite,  103  Wis.  244:  1283. 
Lay  v.  O'Neil,  29  La.  Ann.  722:  33. 
Laving  v.  Paine,  Willes'  Rep.  57!  : 

1105. 
Lazarus  v.  Met.   El.  R.  R.  Co.,  83 
Hun,  553:  1226. 
v.  Met.  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  145  N.  Y. 
581:  1226. 
Lea  v.  Bunim,  83  Pa.  St.  237:  577, 
5S1. 
v.  Iron  Belt  M.   Co.,   119  Ala. 
271:   1227. 
Leader  Printing  Co.  v.  Nichols,  6 

Okl.  302:  07;J. 
Lead  Smelting  Co.  v.  Richardson, 

3  Burr.  1341:  80a 
League  v.  State,  93  Tex.  553:  1222. 
Leak  v.  Gay,  107  N.  C.  468:  1223. 
Leake  v.  Colgan,  125  Cal.  413:  231, 

234. 
Leard  v.  Leard,  30  Ind.  171:  458. 
Learned  v.  Corley.  43  Miss.  687:  666, 
695,  712,  729,  915,  1252. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXXX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Leathe  v.  Thomas,  109111.  App.  434: 

618. 
Leavenworth  v.  Billings.  26  Wash. 
1:  499. 
v.   Brockway,  2  Hill,  201:  611. 
Leavenworth  Co.  v.  Miller,  7  Kan. 

479:  356. 
Leavenworth  Coal  Co.   v.  Barber, 

47  Kan.  29:  317,  321,  607,  1222. 
Leavenworth,   etc.    R.    R.    Co.    v. 
United  States,  92  IT.  S.  733:  1035. 
Leavitt  v.  Bell,  55  Neb.  57:  1012. 

v.  Chambers,  16  Wash.  353:  519. 
Le  Couteulx  v.  Buffalo,  33  N.  Y. 

333:  1033. 
Lea  v.  Barkhampsted,  46  Conn.  213: 
710. 
v.  Carlton,  3  T.  R.  642:  337. 
v.  Clary,  38  Mich.  223:  1047. 
v.  Cook,  1    Wyo.  Ter.  413:  643. 
v.  Forman,   3  Met.   (Ky.)   114: 

1064. 
v.  King,  21  Tex.  577:  609. 
v.  Lincoln,  1  Story,  610:  755. 
v.  Roberts,  3  Okl.  106:  707,  914. 
v.  Simpson,   3   C.   B.  871:  979, 

1108. 
v.  State,  49  Ala.  43:  1117. 
Lee  Bros.    Furn.  Co.    v.    Cram,  63 

Conn.  433:  702,  745. 
Leep  v.  Railway  Co.,  58  Ark.  407: 

418,  578. 
Leeper  v.  State,  103  Tenn.  500:  137, 

158. 
Lees   v.  Sumnersgill,  17  Ves.  508: 

654. 
Leeschke  v.    Miller,   100  111.  App. 

137:  468. 
Lee's  Estate,  76  Md.  108:  1159. 
Leese  v.  Clark,  20  Cal.  387:  882. 
Leete  v.  State  Bank,  115  Mo.  184: 
1161,1164. 
v.  State   Bank,    141    Mo.    574: 
1161,  1164,  1295. 


Leffingwell    v.   Warren,  2  Black, 

599:  614,  615,1218. 
Le  Forest  v.  Tolman,  117  Mass.  109: 

646. 
Leftwiche's  Case,  5  Rand.  657:  554. 
Legg  v.  Britton,  64  Vt.  652:  1293. 
v.  M;!yor,  42  Md.  203:  52, 72, 74, 
82,  87,  321,  608,  867. 
Leggate   v.  Clark,  111  Mass.  308: 

1142. 
Leggett  v.  Hunter,  19  N.  Y.  445: 

627. 
Legler  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  147  Ind. 

181:  437. 
Lehigh  Co.  v.  Meyer,  102  Fa.  St.  479: 

673,811. 
Lehigh  Valley  Coal  Co.'s  Appeal, 

164  Pa.  St.  44:  363. 
Lehigh  Water  Co.   v.  Easton,  121 

U.  S.  388:  1023,  1029. 
Lehman  v.  McBride,  15  Ohio  St.  573: 
188,  431,  432,  447. 
v.  Robinson,  59  Ala.  219:  759. 
Leigh  v.  Kent,  3  T.  R.  362:  461,  893. 
v.  Thornton,  1  B.  &  Aid.  625: 
1282. 
Leighton  v.  Walker,  9  N.  H.  59:  481, 

482,  518. 
Leinkauf  v.  Banes,  66  Miss.  207:  815, 

825. 
Leitensdorf  er  v.  Webb,  20  How.  170 : 

34. 
Leitzel  v.  Centre  Co.,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

208:  500. 
Leland  v.  Tousey,  6  Hill,  328:  636, 
1058. 
v.  Wilkinson,  6  Pet.  317:  628. 
Lemon  v.  Lloyd,  46  Mo.  App.  452: 

1253. 
Lemonius  v.  Mayer,  71  Miss.  514: 

699,  703,  731,  885. 
Lemont  v.  Jenks,  197  111.  363:  1011. 
Lemp  v.  Hastings,  4  Greene  (Iowa), 

448:  898. 


CXXX1V 


TAI1I.K    OF    casks    CITED. 


referanoea  nr.<  bo  tii<>  pages:  Vol,  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  606-1818, 


v.  Portland,  49  Ore.   188:  884, 

t  1    v,   I  'anton.  35  Miss.   189: 
1010.  L028,  103a 
v.  Columbia  St.  Nav.  Co.,  84  N. 

V.  48:  28,  784, 
v.  Pope,  07  Mioh.  145:  1295. 
v.   Wiseman,  31  Md.  201:  702. 
Leoni  v.  Taylor,  20  Mioh.  148:  693. 
.    v.   Chabolla,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.) 
Ml. 
Les   Bois  v.  Bramell,  4  How.  449: 

485b 
Lescallett    v.    Commonwealth,    89 

Va.  878:  894, 
Leschi     v.     "Washington     Ten,     1 

Wash.  T.  13:  308,  555. 
Lesesno   v.    Yound,   33   S.   C.    543: 

696. 
Lessard  v.  Revere,  171  Mass.  294: 

1257. 
Lesser  Cotton  Co.  v.  Yates,  69  Ark. 

:J9G:  499. 
Lessley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  790:  549, 

1201. 
Lester  v.  Garland,  15  Ves.  248:  327, 

329. 
Leverson  v.  Reg.,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  394: 

875,  893. 
Levefs  Case,  1  Hale,  474:  978. 
Levy  v.  Hitsche,  40  La.  Ann.  500: 
007. 
v.  Ostega,  9  N.  M.  391:  464 
v.  State,  6Ind.  281:  633. 
v.  Stewart.  11  Wall.  244:   1016. 
v.  Superior  Court,  105  Cal.  600: 
. 
Lewis  v.   Aylott,  45  Tex.  234:  852. 
v.  Lrackenridge,  1  Blackf.  220: 

v.  Brandenburg,   105   Ky.   14: 

155.  436,  48ft 
v.  Calor,   1   Fost.   &  Fin.   306: 

:j:;7. 


Lewis  v.  Cook  Co.,  72  111.  App,  151: 
462. 
v.  Dunne,  134  Cal.  2d\:  196,  888 

■152. 
v.  Foster,  1  N.  H.  61:  552.  565. 
v.*  Gill,  76  Mo.  App.  504:  847. 
v.  Glass,  92  Tenn.  147:  685. 
v.  Jersey  City,  66  N.  J.  L,  582: 

410. 
v.  Lewelling,  53  Kan.  201:  587. 
v.  Lynch,  61  111.  App.  476:  784, 

785. 
v.  McClure,  8  Ore  273:  869. 
v.  McElvain,  16  Ohio,  347:  550. 
v.  Mvnott,  105  Tenn.  508:  933. 
v.  Sc  hultz,  98  Iowa,  341:  771. 
v.  State,  123  Ala.  84:  300,  432. 
v.  State,  3  Head,  127:  864,  1154. 
v.  State,  148  Ind.  316:  231,  237. 
v.  S.out,  22  Wis.  234:  523. 
v.  Syracuse,  13  App.   Div.  587: 

528 
v.  Webb,  3  Me.  326:  343. 
v.  Woodfolk,  58  Tenn.  25:  308. 
Lewis  Co.  v.  Gordon,  20  Wash.  80: 

304,  430. 
License  Cases,  5  How.  504:  16. 
Lide  v.  Parker,  60  Ala.  165:  612. 
Liddell,  Ex  parte,  93  Cal.  633:  185, 

188,  189.  191,  203,  277,  648,  785. 
Lien   v.  County  Com'rs,  80  Minn. 

58:  193,  281,  514. 
Life  Ina  Co.  v.  Ray,  50  Tex.  512: 

11  GO. 
Liggett  v.  People,  26  Colo.  364:  300. 
Lillard  v.  McGee,  4  Bibb,  165:  636. 
Lima  v.  Cemetery  Ass'n,  42  Ohio  St. 

128:  1002,  1033. 
Lime  City  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Black, 

136  Ind.  544:  693,  706,  713,  722. 
Limestone  Co.  v.  Rather,  48  Ala. 

43:3,  1117. 
Lincoln  v.  Battelle,  6  Wend.  475: 
618,  869. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cxxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Lincoln  v.  Haugan,  45  Minn.  451: 
77,  81. 
v.  Janesch,  63  Neb.  707:  707. 
Lincoln  Co.  v.  Oneida  Co.,  80  Wis. 

267:  547,  1221. 
Lincoln,  etc.    Ass'n   v.   Graham,  7 

Neb.  173:  635. 
Lincoln  St.   Ry.  Co.  v.  Lincoln,  61 

Neb.  109:  1003,  1023. 
Linden,  In  re,  112  Wis.  523:  157, 158. 
Lindenmuller  v.  People,  21  How. 

Pr.  156:  1071. 
Lindley  v.  Davis,  7  Mont.  206:  1261. 
Lindsay  v.  Archibald,  65  Mo.  App. 
120:  1295. 
v.  Cundy,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B.  D.  358: 

685,  1066,  1067. 
v.  U.  S.  Sav.  &  L.   Ass'n.  120 

Ala.  156:  19,  185,  253. 
v.  Williams,  17   Ala.  229:  872. 
Lindsey  v.  Rutherford,  17  B.  Mon. 
245:  939. 
v.  State,  65  Miss.  542:  481,  554, 
1161,  1188. 
Lining  v.  Bentham,  2  Bay,  1:  947. 
Link  v.  Houston,  94  Tex.  378:  1283, 
1285. 
v.  Jones,  15  Colo.  App.  281:  515, 
668. 
Linn  v.  Scott,  3  Tex.  67:  635. 
Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20  Cal.  534: 

342. 
Linton  v.  Blakeney,  etc.  Society,  3 

H.  &  C.  853:  549,  679. 
Linton's  Appeal,  104  Pa.  St.  228: 

848. 
Lion  Ins.  Ass'n  v.  Tucker,  L.  R.  12 

Q.  B.  D.  180:  709,  711,  747. 
Li  Po  Tai,  In  re,  198  Cal.  484:  781. 
Lippincott  v.  Hopkins,  57  Pa.  St. 
328:  940. 
v.  Leeds,  77  Pa.  St.  420:  940. 
Lippman  v.  People,  175  111.  101:  353, 
425. 


Lipscomb  v.  Dean,  1  Lea,  546: 17. 
Litch   v.  Brotherson.  25    How.  Pr. 

416:  1227. 
Litchfield  v.  Vernon,  41  N.  Y.  123: 

997. 
Lithbridge    v.    Chapman,    15  Vin. 

Abr.  103:  1278. 
Litson  v.  Smith,  68  Mo.  App.  397: 

707,  1170. 
Little  v.  Cogswell,  20  Ore.  345:  518. 
v.  Poole,  9  B.  &  C.  192:  938. 
v.  State,  60  Neb.  749:  298,  1312. 
Little    Equemunk,   etc.   Turnpike 

Co.,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct,  632:  214,  272. 
Littlefield  v.  Winslow,  19  Me.  394: 

1010. 
Little  Rock   v.   Quindley,  61  Ark. 

622:  440. 
Little  Rock,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Barker, 
39  Ark.  491:  1292. 
v.  Howell,  31    Ark.    119:    659, 
708,  712. 
Little  Schuylkill  Nav.  Co.  v.  Rich- 
ards, 57  Pa.  St.  142:  1272: 
Littleton  Bridge  Co  v.  Pike,  72  Vt. 

7:  792. 
Liverpool  Bank  v.  Turner,  30  L.  J. 

Ch.  380:  1115. 
Liverpool  Bor.  Bank  v.  Turner,  2 

De.  G.  F.  &  J.  502:  471,  637. 
Livingston,  Ex  parte,  20  Nev.  282: 

229,  247,  773. 
Livingston,  Matter  of,  121  N.  Y.  94: 

707,  847,  884. 
Livingston  v.  Harris,  11  Wend.  329: 
939. 
v.  Jordan,  Chase's  Dec.  454:  37. 
v.    Livingston,    74    App.   Div. 

261:  1222. 
v.  Livingston,   173  N.  Y.  377: 

1219,  1222. 
v.  Van  Ingen,  9  John.  507:  636. 
Livingston  L.  &  B.  Ass'n  v.  Drum- 
mond,  49  Neb.  200:  416. 


C  \  \  \  V 1 


TAB!  l     OF   I   LB1  8   01  I  i  CD. 


Tiif  icfawaw  aw  to  tii''  page*:  Vol  I.  pp.  i  808;  Vol  n,  pp.  606-181B. 


Livingston's     Lessee    v.    Moore,   7 

S1& 
Lloyd,  In  re,  51  Kan.  501:  956. 
Lloyd  \.  Dollison,   13  Oliio  C.  D. 
571:   140,  143,  856,  300,  423, 
776,  B47. 
v.  Matthew*  155  U.  S.  222:  23, 
CO  1. 

aith,  170  Pa  St.  213:   248, 
104,  105,  106,  455. 
Lobdell  v.  Keene,  85  Minn.  00: 1107. 
Lobrano  v.  Nelligan,  9  Wall.  295: 

687. 
Lock  v.  Miller,  3  Stew.  &  Port.  13: 

4?e.  B63. 
Locke's  Appeal.  72  Pa.  St  491:  145, 

101,  171.  L73. 
Lockett  v.  Usry,  28  Ga.  345:  18, 1225. 
Lockhart  v.  Troy,  48  Ala.  579:  446. 
Lock  wool    v.  Crawford,  18   Conn. 

:611,  618,628. 
Loeb  v.  Columbia  Tp.,  91   Fed.  37: 

577. 
Loftis  v.  Loftis,  94  Tenn.  232:  1201. 
Loftus  v.  F.  &  M.  Nat.  Bank,  133 

Pa.  St.  97:  1290. 
Logan  v.  Attix,  7  Iowa,  77:  1254. 
v.  Courtown,  13  Beav.  22:  699. 
v.   Fidelity  &  C.  Co.,  140  Mo. 

114:  692. 
v.  State,  3Heisk.  442:  308. 
v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  263: 

779,  783. 
v.  Walton,  12  Ind.  639:  640. 
Logan    Co.    Coin'rs.    v.    Harvey,  6 

Okl.  629: 
Logan  Nat.  G.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Chilli- 
B.65   Ohio  St.  186:  694,  713, 

.  v.  Logsdon,  109  111.  App. 
329. 
man  v.  State,  81  Ind.  15:  877. 
Lombard    v.    Antioch   College,   60 
Wis.  459;  581. 


Lombard  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  73  Ga, 
883:  911. 
v.  Whiting,  Walker  (Miss.),  229: 
1049. 
Lorn  men  v.  Minneapolis  G.  L.  Co., 

65  Minn.  190:  429. 
London,  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Imp. 

Co.,  84  Minn.  144:  1227. 
London,  Mayor  of,  v.  Queen,  13  Q. 

B.  3:i:  471. 
London   Tobacco  Pipe   Makers  v. 

Woodroffe,  7  B.  &  C.  838:  849. 
Long  v.   Culp,   14  Kan.  412:   061, 
666. 
v.  Duluth,  49  Minn.  2S0:  1024, 
v.  Louisville,  97  Ky.  304:  1158. 
v.  People,  109  111.  App.  197:  963. 
v.  Schee,  86  Iowa,  619:  707. 
v.  Stone,  19  Ky.  L.  R.  240:  517. 
v.  Walker,  105  N.  C.  90:   1190, 
1205. 
Longes  v.  Kennedy,  2   Bibb,  607: 

869,  880. 

Longey  v.  Leach,  57  Vt.  377:  1062. 

Long  Island  Water  Supply  Co.  v. 

Brooklyn,   166  U.    S.    685:    1021, 

1023,  1024. 

Longlois  v.  Longlois,  48  Ind.   60: 

442,  459,  562. 
Looker  v.  Davis,  47  Ma  140:  675, 

677. 
Loomis  v.  Little  Falls,  66  App.  Div. 
299:  1232. 
v.  Runge,  66  Fed.  856:  451. 
Looney  v.   Hughes,  30   Barb.  605: 

1119. 
Loper  v.  State,  82  Minn.  71:  441, 

649.  736,  795,  801,  802,  846,  884. 
Lord  v.  Parker,  3  Allen,  127:  862, 

1296 
Lord  Advocate  v.  Sinclair,  L.  R.  1 

Scotch  App.  178:  892. 
Lord  &  P.  Chem.  Co.,  In  re,  7  Del. 
Ch.  848'  572, 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


CXXXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Yol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  VoL  II,  pp.  C05-1315. 


Lorentz  v.  Alexander,  87  Ga.  444: 

841. 
Lorman  v.  Benson,  8  Mich.  18:  605. 
v.  Clarke,  2  McLean,  568:  613. 
Los  Angeles  v.  Hance,  122  Cal.  77: 

223. 
Los  Angeles  Co.  v.  Spencer,  126  Cal. 

670:  300. 
Los  Angeles  Gold  M.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 13  Colo.  App.  1:  420. 
Losch  v.  St.  Charles,  65  Mich.  555: 

252. 
Lothrop  v.  Stedrnan,  42  Conn.  583: 

654.  658. 
Lougee  v.  Washburn,  16  N.  H.  134: 

611. 
Lougher  v.  Soto,  129  Cal.  610:  397. 
Loughridge  v.  Huntington,  56  Ind. 

253:  334. 
Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102  U.  S. 
203:  1190,  1200,  1201. 
v.  New  Orleans,  109  U.  S.  285: 

1213. 
v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S.  278:  184, 

265. 
v.  St.  Martin's  Parish,  111  U.  S. 
716:  1213. 
Louisiana  State  Bank  v.  Flood,  3 

Mart.  (U.  S.)  341:  625. 
Louisiana  St.  L.  Co.  v.  Richoux,  23 

La.  Ann.  745:  203. 
Louis  Olson,  The,  v.  Haritwen,  57 

Fed.  845:  525. 
Louisville    v.    Commonwealth,    9 
Dana,  70:  849. 
v.  Garr,  97  Ky.  583:  532. 
v.  Hegan,  20  Ky.  L.  R.  1532: 391. 
v.  Kuntz,  104  Ky.  584:  391. 
v.  Savings  Bank,  104  U.  S.  469: 
308,  320,  321,  606,  608. 
Louisville,  etc.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  2  Met. 

(Ky.)  168:  199,  221,  202. 
Louisville,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Anch- 
ors, 114  Ala.  492:  1314. 


Louisville,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Bullitt 
Co.,  92  Ky.  280:  1236. 
v.  Catron,  102  Ky.  323:  814. 
v.  Commonwealth,  97  Ky.  675: 

1035. 
v.  Commonwealth,  99  Ky.  132: 

143. 
v.  County  Court,  1  Sneed,  668: 

904,  907,  927. 
v.  East  St.  Louis,  134  111.  656: 

435. 
v.  Kentucky,  161  U.  S.  677: 1021, 

1022,  1035. 
v.  Mississippi,  133  U.  S.  587:  613. 
v.  Sharp,  91  Ky.  411:  1167. 
v.  State,  66  Miss.  662:  469. 
v.  Wallace,  136  111.  87:  414 
Louisville  &  J.  Ferry  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 104  Ky.  726:  428. 
Louisville  Trust  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 
73  Fed.  716:  1035. 
v.  Cincinnati,  76  Fed.  296:  614, 
1021. 
Louisville  Water  Co.  v.  Clark,  143 

U.  S.  1:  533,  921. 
Love  v.  Pusey,  3  Penn.  (Del.)  577: 

988. 
Lovejoy  v.  Whipple,   18   Vt  379: 

938. 
Lovelace  v.  Tabor  M.  &  M.  Co.,  29 

Colo.  62:  467. 
Lovell  v.  Davis,  52  Mo.  App.  342: 

1222. 
Loverin  v.  McLaughlin,  161 I1L  417: 

736. 
Low  v.  Rees  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb. 

127:  417,  597,  599. 
Lowe  v.  Bourbon  Co.,  6  Kan.  App. 
603:  279,  566. 
v.  Harris,  112  N.  C.  472:  1161, 
1191,  1219,  1234. 
Lowell  v.  Doe,  44  Minn.  144:  862. 
v.  Washington  Co.  R.  R.  Co.,  90 
Me.  80:  796,  800. 


i  \r.;  1     •   :     CASKS   01  FED. 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  I  BOS;  Vol.  n,  pp.  805-1815. 


1 1  CaL  215: 

v.  People,  87  X.  7.836:  573,860. 
nstein  v.  Youn g,   B  *  >kL  316: 
134 
Lower  Chatham,  In  re,  33  N.  J. 

1..  497:  701. 
Lowndes  Co.  v.  Hunter,  19  Ala.  507: 

581. 
Lowrey  v.  Mayor.  23  R.  I.  234:  523. 
Lowry  i-.  Collateral  L.  Ass'n,   172 
N.  Y.  394:  851. 
v.  Francis,2  Yerg,  534:  1192. 
3  v.  Com'rs,  44  In  1.  521:  907. 
v.  Ladew,  28  Mo.  312:  Gil. 
v.  MeBIair,  12  Gill  &  J.  1:  G19. 
Lit -as  County  v.  Chicago,  etc.   Ry. 

Co..  67  Iowa.  5(1:  442. 
Luck  v.  State,  90  Ind.  10:  8G7. 
Lucky  v.  Police  Jury,  4G  La.  Ann. 

679:  301. 
Lucy  v.  Levington,  1  Vent.  175:  627. 
Ludeling  v.  His  Creditors,  4  Mart. 

N.  S.)  G03:  1225,  1227. 
LuJington    v.     Heilman,    9    Colo. 
A]  p.  54S:  262. 
v.  United  States,  15  Ct.  of  CI. 
453:  71)5. 
Ludlow  Street,  59  App.  Div.  180: 

1225. 
Luehrman  v.  Taxing  Dist.,  2  Lea. 

:  201,  205,  22 1. 
Lueken  v.  People,  3  111.  App.  375: 

Luke  v.  Calhoun  Co.,  52  Ala.  115: 
377. 
v.  Calhoun  Co.,5G  Ala.  415:  501. 
Luling  v.  Racine,  1  Biss.  C.  C.  316: 

346. 
Lull  v.  Fox,  etc.  Improvement  Co., 

19  Wis.  100:  1272. 
Lum  v.  Vicksburg,  72  Miss.  950:  3G0. 
Luman  v.   Hitchens  Bros.,  90  Bid. 
14: 


Lumberman's  Exoh.  v.  Lutz,  2  Pa. 

Supr.  Ct.  91:  707. 
Lund  v.  Chippewa  Co.,  93  Wis.  640 

70'.  i.  950. 
Lundberg  v.  Sharvey,  46  Minn.  3".0: 

1261. 
Lusher  v.  Scites,  4  W.  Va,   11:  17, 

605,  coa 

Lutlier  v.  Baylor,  8  Mo.  App  421: 

202,  205,  211. 
Lyharger  v.   State,  2   Wash.  552: 

1134. 
Lycoming   F.   Ins.    Co.    v.    Wood- 
worth,  83  Pa.  St.  223:  607. 
Lyddy  v.  Long  Island  City,  104  N. 

Y.  218:  462,47a 
Lyman  v.  Martin,  2  Utah,  136:  7a 
Lyn  v.  WTyn,  Bridg.  122:  GG1. 
Lynch  v.  Chase,  55  Kan.  367:  10, 
301,  525. 
v.  Murphy,   119  Mo.   163:    292, 

437,  834. 
v.  State,  9  Ind.  541:  946. 
Lynchburg  v.  N.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  80 

Va.  237:  837,  838. 
Lynchburg,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pear- 
son  Co.  Com'rs,  109   N.  C.   159: 
1302. 
Lynde  v.  Noble,  20  John.  SO:  1249. 
Lynes  v.  State,  5  Port.  236:  1058. 
Lynn  v.  Co.  Com'rs,  143  Mass.  148: 
1145,  1149. 
v.  Co.  Com'rs,  153  Mass.  40:  775. 
v.  State,  84  Md.  G7:  1188. 
Lynott  v.  Dickerman,  65  Minn.  471: 

301. 
Lyon    v.   Denison,   80    Mich.    371: 
741. 
v.  Jerome.  26  Wend.  485:  1042. 
v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  142  N.  Y. 

298:  444. 
v.  Ogden,  85  Me.  374:  54:5,  795, 

855,  858. 
v.  Smith,  11  Barb.  124:  515. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXXX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Lyons  v.  Woods,  153  U.  S.  649:  48, 
70. 
v.  Yerex,  100  Mich.  214:  766. 
Lytle  v.  Haff,  75  Tex.  128:  137. 

M. 

Mabie  v.  Whittaker,  10  Wash.  656: 

1295. 
Mabry   v.    Baxter,   11   Heisk.  682: 

643,  1228. 
MacDonald  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R. 

Co.,  23  R.  I.  558:  654. 
Macdougall   v.  Paterson,  11   C.  B. 

755:  793,  1147,  1149. 
Mace  v.  Cammel,  Lofft.  782:  656. 

v.  State,  58  Ark.  79:  766. 
Mack  v.  Jastro,  126  Cal.  130,  517. 
v.  Johnson,  59  Ark.  333:  567. 
v.  State,  60  N.  J.  L.  28:  234, 243. 
Mackall   v.  District  of  Columbia, 

16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  301:  710,  713, 

721,  735. 
Macke  v.  Byrd,  131  Mo.  682:  785, 

846. 
Mackey  v.  Miller,  126  Fed.  161:  692, 

779. 
Mackin  v.  Haven,  187  111.  480:  1311. 
v.  Haven,  88  111.  App.  434:  1311. 
Macnaghten's    Case,  10    C.   &    F. 

200:  978. 
Macnavvhoc  Plantation  v.  Thomp- 
son, 36  Me.  365:  551,  1169. 
MacNichol  v.  Spence,  83   Me.  87: 

1158,  1191. 
Macoleta  v.  Packard,  14  Cal.  179: 

34. 
Macon  v.  Hughes,  110  Ga.  795:  208. 
v.  Macon   Sav.    Bank,    60    Ga. 
133:  838. 
Macon,  etc.  Co.  v.  Macon,  96  Ga.  23: 

846. 
Macon,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85 

Ga.  1 :  300. 

J 


Macon,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson, 
38  Ga.  409:  1292. 
v.  Little,  45  Ga.  370:  47. 
MacVeagh  v.  Royston,  172  111.  515: 
846,  848. 
v.  Royston,   71   111.    App.    617: 
846,  848. 
Madden  v.  Hardy,  92  Tex.  613:  135, 
727,  955. 
v.  Lancaster  Co.,  65  Fed.  188: 
917,  1283,  1311. 
Maddox  v.  Graham,  2  Met.  (Ky.) 

56:  462,  1021. 
Madera  lrr.  Dist.,  In  re,  92  Cal.  296: 

133. 
Madigau    v.    Workingmen's,    etc. 

Ass?n,  73  Md.  317:  1231,  1237. 
Madison,  etc.  P.  R,  Co.  v.  Reynolds, 

3  Wis.  287:  796. 
Magneau  v.  Fremont,  30  Neb.  843: 

13,  132,  139. 
Magown  v.  Illinois  T.  &  S.  Bank, 

170  U.  S.  283:  427. 
Magruder  v.    Carroll,   4  Md.   335: 
660,  709,  1220. 
v.  State,  40  Ala.  347:  481. 
Mahomet  v.  Quackenbush,  117  U.  S. 

508:  222,  257. 
Mahoney  v.  State,  5  Wyo.  520:  555. 
v.  Wright,  10  Irish  C.  L.  (N.  S.) 
420:  493,  529. 
Mahoon  v.  Greenfield,  52  Miss.  434: 

979. 
Main  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.,  73  App. 

Div.  265:  518,  519. 
Main  St.,  In  re,  98  N.  Y.  454:  788. 
Maize   v.    State,   4    Ind.    342:  145, 

172. 
Malcolm  v.    Rogers,   5    Cow.   188: 

1155. 
Maling  v.  Crummey,  5  Wash.  222: 

222,  294. 
Mallan  v.  May,  13  M.  &  W.  511: 
752. 


cxl 


TABLE   OF   casks   OITED, 


The  retoranoM  <m>  bo  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003:  Vol.  n,  pp.  cor>-i3i5 


Mallett  v.  Simpson,  04  N.  C.  37:  950. 

Mallory  v.  Berry,  16  Kan.  293:  1097. 

v.  Biles,  i  Met  (Ky.)  58:  309. 

v.  La  Crosse  Abattoir  Co.,  80 

Wis.  170:  1256. 

Malloy  v.  Commonwealth,  115  Pa. 

St.  35:  528. 
Malone  v.  Bosch,  104  Cal.  680:  468. 
x.  Roy,  i::i  Cal  344:  1190,1210. 
Maloney  v.  Bruce,  94  Pa.  St.  249: 

1005. 
Malonny  v.  Mahar,  1  Mich.  26:  889. 
Maltby  v.  Cooper,  Morris  (Iowa)  59: 

1283. 
Manchester  v.  People,  178  111.  385: 

191,  387. 
Mandel  v.  Swan  L.  &  C.  Co.,  154  111. 

177:  23. 
Mandell  v.  Fogg,  182  Mass.  582:  31, 

24. 
Mandere  v.  Bonsiguore,  28  La.  Ann. 

415:  637. 
Manger  v.  Board  of  Examiners,  90 

Md.  659,  688,  689. 
Mangun  v.  Webster,  7  Gill,  78:  867. 
Mangus  v.  McClelland,  93  Va.  786: 

Manhardt  v.  111.  StaatsZeitungCo., 

90  111.  App.  315:  733. 
Manhattan  Co.  v.  Kallenberg,  165 

N.  Y.  1:  694,  695,  707,  711,  988. 
Manhattan  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Albro, 

127  Fed.  281:  614. 
Manhattan  R.  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  102 

X.  Y.  301:  1141. 
Manhattan  Trust  Co.  v.  Davis,  23 
Mont.  273:  1020. 
v.  Sioux  City  Cable  Ry.  Co.  68 
Fed.  82:  772. 
Manion  v.  Ohio  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  99 

Ky.  501:  924,  936. 
Manistee  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commis- 
rier  of  Railroads,  118  Mich.  349: 
1214. 


Mankin  v.  Ponn.  Co.  (Ind.):    235. 
Manley  v.  Park,  187  U.  S.  547:  40, 
614 
v.  Raleigh,  4  Jones  Eq.  370:  173. 
Manlove  v.  Whit.',  8  Cal.  376:  457. 
Manly  v.  Downing,   15   Neb.   637: 

1056. 
Mann  v.   McAteo,  37  Cal.   11:  443, 

642,  122S. 
Mansell  v.  Reg.,  8E  &  B.  Ill:  887, 

895. 
Mansfield   v.   First    Nat.    Bank,    5 

Wash.  665:  464. 
Mansfield's  Case,  22  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

224:  306,  415. 
Mansur-Tibbetts'  Impl.  Co.  v.  Wil- 

let,  10  Okl.  383:  618. 
Mantle  v.  Largey,15  Mont.  116:  530, 

537. 
Mantonya   v.    Emerich   Outfitting 

Co.,  172  111.  92:  741. 
Manuel  v.  Manuel,  13  Ohio  St.  458: 

814,  852. 
Maple  Lake  v.  Wright  Co.,  12  Minn. 

403:  660,  666. 
Marblehcad   v.   County  Com'rs,   5 

Gray,  451:  1044. 
Marchant  v.  Longworthy,  6  Hill, 

640:  1129. 
Marcotte  v.  Fitzgerald,  45  Minn.  51: 

1123. 
Marcy  v.  Howard,  91  Ala  133:  22, 

618. 
Mariner  v.  Dyer,  2  Me.  165:  947. 
Marion  v.  State,  16  Neb.  349,  1187. 
v.  State,  20  Neb.  233:  1175, 1 181. 
Marion  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  91 

Ky.  388:  1230,  1236. 
Mark  v.  Russell,  40  Pa.  St.  372:  337. 
Market  Bank  v.  Pacific  Bank,  27 

Hun,  465:  880. 
Marks  v.  Trustees,  37  Ind.  161:  339. 
Marple  v.   Myers,   12  Pa.  St.  122: 

1005. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


cxli 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Marqueze  v.  Caldwell,  48  Miss.  23: 

784. 
Marquis  v.  Chicago,  27  111.  App.  251 : 

815. 
Marquis  of  Chandos  v.  Cora'rs,  6  Ex. 

464:  998. 
Marr  v.  Enloe,  1  Yerg.  452:  17. 
Marrigault  v.  Ward,  123  Fed.  707: 

126. 
Marriner  v.  Roper  Co.,  112  N.  C.  164: 

964, 
Marsh  v.  Chestnut,  14  111.  223:  1139. 
v.  Hanley,  111  Cal.  368:  409, 597, 

598. 
v.  Higgins,  9  C.  B.  551:   1160, 

1224. 
v.  Nelson,  101  Pa.  St.  51:  1013. 
v.  Supervisors,  42  Wis.  502: 1132. 
Marshall  v.  Am.  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.,  16 
Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  615:  470. 
v.  Grimes,  41  Miss.  27:  928. 
v.  Sherman,  148  N.  Y.  9:  24. 
v.  Vultee,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  294: 
644,  1244. 
Marshalsea,  Case  of  the,  10  Rep.  73a, 

884. 
Marson  v.  Lund,  13  Q.  B.  664:  1149. 
Marston  v.  Humes,  3  Wash.  267:  98. 
242. 
v.  Tryon,  108  Pa.  St.  270:  986, 
987. 
Martin,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  Div. 

212:  945. 
Martin  v.  Archer,  3  Hill  (S.  C.)211: 
1278. 
v.  Broach,  6  Ga,  21:  184,  205, 

207. 
v.  Election  Com'rs,  126  Cal.  404: 

661,  955. 
v.Ford,  5  T.  R.  101:  963. 
v.  Gleason,  139  Mass.  183:  689. 
v.  Hemming,  18  Jur.  1002:  881. 
v.  Hewitt,  44  Ala.  418:  223. 
v.  Hughes,  67  N.  C.  293:  1200. 


Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304:  39, 
708,  747,  887. 
v.  Jennings,  10  La.  Ann.  553: 

637. 
v.  Le  Master,  63  Mo.  App.  342: 

1240. 
v.  Martin,  51  Me.  366:  872. 
v.  Martin,  1  Sm.  &  M.  176:  611. 
v.  O'Brien,  34  Miss.  21:  709,731. 
v.  People,  87  111.  524:  174. 
v.  Robinson,  67  Tex.  368:  910. 
v.  South  Salem  Land   Co.,  94 

Va.  28:  135,  230,  1214 
v.  State,  22  Tex.  214:  641. 
v.  State,  24  Tex.  61:931. 
v.  Territory,  8  Okl.  41 :  43. 
v.  Tyler,  4  N.  D.  278:  281. 
v.  Waddell,  16  Pet.  411:  1020. 
Martindale  v.  Martindale,  10  Ind. 

566:  443. 
Martinsville  v.  Frieze,  33  Ind.  507: 

435,  440. 
Marvin  v.  Bates,  13  Mo.  217:  1279. 
Mary  Blane,  Steamer,  v.  Beehler, 

12  Mo.  477:  328,  329. 
Mascowitz  v.  State,  49  Ark.  171: 

1277. 
Maslin  v.  Hiett,  37  W.  Va.  15:  1160, 

1288. 
Mason  v.  Armitage,  13  Ves.  36:  654. 
v.  Boom  Co.,  3  Wall.  Jr.  252:  670. 
v.  Commonwealth,  101  Ky.  397: 

773. 
v.  Cranberry,  68  N.  J.  L.  149:  61. 
v.  Crosby,  Davies,  303:  1283. 
v.  Finch,  3  111.  223:  659. 
v.  Finch,  2  Scam.  223:  717,  718. 
v.  Haile,  12  Wheat.  370:  1190, 

1200. 
v.  Harper's  Ferry  Bridge  Co., 

17  W.  Va.  397:  529. 
v.  Johnson,  24  111.  159:  1279. 
v.  Mason's  Widow,  12  La.  589: 
611. 


cxlii 


r.\i;i.i:   OF  CASKS  cm;i>. 


Tin"  rafarenoea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol  11,  pp.  005-1315. 


•I  v.  Muihoiii.f.  Dana,  140:  624 
v.  Rogers,  i  l-itt.  877:  69a 
v.  Bpencer,  85   Kan.  612:   401, 

v.  Wash,  1  111.  16:  869. 
lohusetta  L  &  T.  Co.  v.  Hamil- 
ton, 88  Fed.  586  '.  884. 
Mass.  Mnt.  L  Ins.  Co.  v.  Colo.  L.  & 
T.  Co.,  20  Colo  1:  85,95,  1218,  L28a 
Afassenburg  v.  Bibb  Co.  Com'rs,  96 

Ga.  614.  891. 
Itassey  v.  Dunlap,  146  Ind.  350:  767. 
Masterson  v.  Beasly,  3  Obio,  301: 

Mastronada  v.  State,  60  Miss.  86: 

550.  55 1. 
Matheson  v.  Hearin,  20  Ala.  210: 

905. 
Mathews  v.  Densmoiv,  43  M  ieh.  461 : 
1049. 
v.  People,  202  I1L  389:  425,  597, 

v.  Shores,  24  111.  27:  684,  889. 
Mathewson  v.  Ham,  21  R.  L  203:  331. 
v.   Phoenix   Iron   Foundry,   20 
Fed.  281:  573. 
Mathieson  v.   Ilarrod,  L.   R.  7  Eq. 

270:  1142, 
Matins  v.  Jones,  84  Ga,  804:  341. 

v.  State,  31  Fla.  291:  125,  560. 
Matthew  v.  Sands,  29  Ala.  136:  788. 
Matthews,  Ex  parte,  52    Ala.    51: 

930. 
Matthews,  In  re,  109  Fed.  603:  711, 

731,  885. 
Matthews  v.  Ansley,  31  Ala.  20,  31, 
610. 
v.  Commonwealth,    18    Gratt. 

989:  603,  712,  729,  813. 
v.  Kimball,  70   Ark.  451:   834, 

840. 
v.  Murphy,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  750: 

142, 
v.  Phillips,  2  Salk.  424:  1278. 


Matthews   v.  Sands,  29  Ala  130: 
1048. 
v.  Skinker,   62    Mo.    829:    615, 

1035. 
v.  Zane,  7  Wheat,  164:  308,309. 
Matthewson   v.  Spencer,  8  Sneed, 

513:  L23Q. 
Mattingly  v.  District  of  Columbia, 

97  U.  S.  6S7:  1237. 

Mattison  v.  Hart,  14  C.  B.  385:  793. 

Mattox   v.  Hightshue,  39  Cal.  95: 

1142. 

v.  Knox,  96  Ga.  403:  354,  408. 

v.  State,   115  Ga.  212:  283,  603. 

Mat/,  v.  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.,  85  Fed. 

180:  614. 
Mauch    v.    Hartford,   112  Wis.  40: 

560. 
Mauer  v.  Cliff,  94  Mich.  194:  769. 
Mauget  v.  Plummer,  21  Ky.  L.  R. 

641:  527. 
Mauldin  v.  Greenville,  33  S.  C.  1: 

1030. 

Maule  Coal  Co.  v.  Parthenheimer, 

155  Ind.   100:  134,  205,  216,  221. 

229. 

Maull  v.  Vaughn.  45  Ala.  134:  1201. 

Mausur-Tebbetts  Imp].  Co.  v.  Wil- 

let,  10  Okl.  383:  22. 
Maxey  v.  Loyal,  38  Ga.  531:  1200. 
Maxwell  v.  Bay  City,  46  Mich.  278: 
1070. 
v.  Collins,  8  Ind.  38:  665,  710, 

730,  1102,  1103. 
v.  Goetschius,  40  N.  J.  L.  383: 

1217,  1218. 
v.  People.  158  111.  248:  834,  835. 
v.  State,  89  Ala.  150:  491. 
v.  Stuart,  99  Tenn.  409:  518. 
v.  Tillamook  Co.,  20  Ore.  495: 

424. 
v.  Wessels,  7  Wis.  103:  1136. 
May   v.    Anaconda,  20   Mont.  140: 
1311. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


cxliii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


May  v.  Great  W.  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R.  7  Q. 
B.  377:  702,  705. 
v.  Jameson,  11  Ark.  368:  619. 
v.  Rice,  91  Ind.  549:  114,   116, 
117. 
Mayer,  In  re,  50  N.  Y.  504:  203,  204, 

221,  222. 
Mayer,  Matter  of,  50  N.  Y.  507:  193. 
Mayer  v.  Soyster,  30  Md.  402:  1296. 
Mayers  v.  State,  7  Ark.  68:  554. 
Mayfield  v.  Elmore,   100  Ky.  417: 

429. 
Maynard  v.  Marshall,  91  Ga.  840: 
230,  1191. 
v.  Valentine,  2  Wash.  Ter.  3: 14. 
Mayne  v.  Board,  123  Ind.  132:  1225. 
Mayor,  Ex  parte,  116  Ala.  186:  299. 
Mayor,  etc.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  6  Gill,  288:  1038. 
v.  Broadway,  97  N.  Y.  275:  562. 
v.  Central  R.  R.  etc.  Co.,  50  Ga. 

620:  1002. 
v.  Clunet,  23  Md.  469:  164. 
v.  Davis,  6  W.  &  S.  269:    924, 

1019. 
v.  Dearmon,  2  Sneed,  121 :  343, 

357,  461,  518. 
v.  Dechert,  32  Md.  369:  583. 
v.  Finney,  54  Ga.  317:  172. 
v.  Green  Mount  Cem.,  7  Md. 

517:  716. 
v.  Groshen,  30  Md.  436:  517. 
v.  Hartridge,  8    Ga.   23:    999: 

1013. 
v.  Harwood,  32  Md.  471:  609. 
v.  Howard,  6  H.  &  J.  388:  636, 

659,  709,  731,  845,  853. 
v.  Jersey  City,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  20 

N.  J.  Eq.  360:  462. 
v.  Lord,  17  Wend.  285:  644, 1241. 
v.  Lord,   18  Wend.    126:    1019, 

1241. 
v.  Macon,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  7  Ga. 
221:  532,  1021. 


Mayor,  etc.  v.  Magruder,  34  Md.  381 : 
675. 
v.  Marriott,  9  Md.  160:  1150. 
v.  Minor,  70  Ga.  191:  527. 
v.  Moore,  6  H.  &  J.  381:   657, 

912. 
v.  Ohio,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  26  Pa.  St. 

355:  1021. 
v.  Queen,  13  Q.  B.  33:  471. 
v.  Reitz,  50  Md.  575:  221. 
v.  Root,  8  Md.  95:  663,  914, 1075, 

1077,  1102. 
v.  Sands,  105  N.  Y.  210:  943. 
v.  State,  4  Ga.  26:  184,  204. 
v.  State,  15  Md.  376:  925,  927. 
v.  State,  30  Md.  112:    185,  552, 

554. 
v.  Trigg,  46  Mo.  288:  431,  432. 
Mayrhofer  v.  Board  of  Education, 

89  Cal.  110:  953,  1257. 
Mays  v.  Cincinnati,  1  Ohio  St.  268: 

1009,  1011,  1033. 
May's  Heirs  v.  Frazee,  4  Litt.  392: 

627. 
Maysville,  etc,  R.  R  Co.   v.  Her- 

rick,  13  Bush,  122:  795. 
Maysville  &  Lexington  T.  Road  Co. 

v.  Wiggins,  104  Ky.  540:  360. 
McAfee  v.  Southern  R  R,  Co.,  36 

Miss.  669:  462,  496. 
McAllister  v.  Armstrong  Co.,  6  Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  766:  500. 
v.  Hamlin,  83  Cal.  361:  458. 
McAnnich  v.  Miss.  &  M.  R.  R.  Co., 

20  Iowa,  338:  398,  412. 
McArdle  v.  Jersey  City,  66  N.  J.  L. 

590:  379,  380,  390,  577. 
Mc Arthur  v.  Nelson,  81  Ky.  67:  221. 
v.  St.  Louis  Piano  Co.,  85  Mo. 
App.  525:  1311. 
McAskie's  Appeal,  154  Pa.  St.  24: 

955. 
McAurich  v.  R.   R.  Co.,  20   Iowa, 
342:  276. 


oxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASKS    CITED. 


The  rafwvnces  are  to  tht>  pagtp:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


IfoBee  v.  Boke,  8  Bpeers,188:  Ilia 
lioBride'a  Appeal,  77  Pa.  St  480: 

IfoBrown  v.  Scottish  Invest  Co., 

153  U.  S.  31S:   1197. 
MoCabe  v.  Carpenter,  102  Cal.  409: 
157. 

v.  Emerson,  18  Pa.  St  111:  19. 
v.  Kenney,  52  Hun,  514:  252. 
McCalla  v.  Bane,  45  Fed.  828:  240. 
McCallie  v.  Chattanooga,  3  Head. 

821:  357. 
MoCalment  v.  State,  77  Ind.  250: 

558. 
McCann  v.  Mortgage  Bank  &  In- 
vest Co.,  3   N.  D.  172:  557. 
v.  New  York,  52  App.  Div.  358: 

558,  1217. 
v.  State.  13  a  &  M.  471:  481. 
McCardle,   Ex  parte,  7  Wall.  506: 

.125,  1169,  1222. 
McCarter  v.  Orphan  Asylum  Soc, 

9  Cow.  437:  853,  919. 
McCarthy   v.  Commonwealth,  110 
Pa.  St.  343:  402,  403. 
v.  McCarthy,    20     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)  195:  464,  405.  467,  572. 
v.  Wells,    51    Hun,    171:    1265, 
1209. 
McCarver    v.   Herzberg,   120   Ala. 
523:  115,  628,  1027, 
v.  Jenkins,  2  Heisk.  629:  1118. 
McCaslin  v.  State,  44  lnd.  151:  205, 

221,  262. 
McCay's   Appeal,   37    Pa.   St  125: 

1254 
McChesney  v.  Chicago,  159  I1L  223: 

221. 
McClain  v.  Williams,  10  S.  D.  336: 
1222. 
v.  Williams.  11  S.  D.  60:  415. 
McClay  v.  Lincoln.  32  Neb.  412:  391. 
v.  Worrell,  lb  Neb.   44:    1266: 
UJ6& 


McCleary  v.  Alleghany  Co.,  163  Pa. 

St.  578:  539. 
McClellan   v.    Hein,  56  Neb.   600: 
1268. 
v.   Powell,   109  I1L   App  222: 
1258,  1260. 
McClelland  v.  Hammond,  12  Cola 

App.  82:  572. 
McCless  v.  Meekins,  117  N.  C.  34: 

579. 
McCloskey  v.  McConnell,  9  Watts, 

17:  914. 
McCluny  v.  Silliman,  3  Pet  270: 

1017. 
McCluskey  v.  Cromwell,  11  N.  Y. 

601:  695,  698,  699. 
McCollister  v.  Bishop,  78  Minn.  228: 

302. 
McComb  v.  Gilkey,  29  Miss.  146:  626. 
McCommons   v.    English,    100  Ga. 

653:  o00. 
McConky  v.  Superior  Ct,  56  CaL  83: 

757. 
McConnaughy  v.  Pennoyer,  43  Fed. 

196:  1190. 
McGonneiPs  Estate,  5  Pa  Supr.  Ct 

120:  465. 
McCook  v.  State,  91  Ga.  740:  230. 
McCool  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  459:  463, 
.      494,  511,  710,  711,  748,  757, 

864,  958,  1169. 
v.  State,  7  Ind.  379:  317. 
McCord  v.  Sullivan,  85  Minn.  344: 

1137,  1138,  1224,1236. 
McCormack  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.  R. 

R.  Co.,  9  Ind.  283:  638,  917. 
McCormick   v.  Alexander,  2  Ohio, 
74:  644,  1076. 
v.  Eliot,  43  Fed.  469:  1160,  1288. 
v.  People,  139  111.  499:  534. 
v.  Sullivant,  10  Wheat  192:  617. 
v.  West  Duluth,  47  Minn.  272: 
135,  372,  669,  694,  707,  739, 
79& 


TABLE   OF   OASES    CITED 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL.  I,  pp.  l-£03;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1316. 

.      ,  n-r  ,.  »«•__•_•-         1r-.T\ 1J       _        T>—„       OA        Al 


cxlv 


McCortnick    Harvesting    Machine 

Co.  v.  Mills,  64  Neb.  166:  964 
McCornick  v.  Thatcher,  8  Utah,  294 

464. 
McCorry  v.  King,  3  Humph.  267 

609. 
McCowan  v.  Davidson,  43  Ga.  480 

1170,  1174 
McCowin's  Appeal,  165  Pa.  St.  233 

920. 
McCracken  v.   Hayward,  2  How. 
608:  643,  1190,  1203. 
v.  State,  71  Md.  150:  527. 
McCraney  v.  McCraney,  5  Iowa,  232: 

1226. 
McCrea  v.  Roberts,  89  Md.  238:  9. 
v.  Russell,  100  Mich.  375:  1261. 
McCready  v.  Sexton,  29  Iowa,  356: 

585. 
McCreery  v.  Cobb,  93  Mich.  463: 

499. 
McCuen  v.  State,  19  Ark.  634:  558. 
McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat. 
316:  631,  888,  997,  1194 
v.  State,  11  Ind.  424:  85,  925. 
McCullough  v.  Virginia,  172  U.  S. 

102:  585,  952. 
McCully  v.  State,  102  Tenn.  509: 132, 

137,  138. 
McCutcheon  v.  Pacific  R.  R,  Co.,  72 
Mo.  A  pp.  271:  815,  828,999. 
v.  People,  69  111.  601:  1276. 
McDade  v.  People,  29  Mich.  50:  819, 

1263. 
McDaniel  v.  Webster,  2  Houst.  305: 

1200. 
McDaniels  v.  Connelly,  30  Wash. 

549:  430. 
McDeed  v.  McDeed,  67  111.  545:  610, 

622. 
McDermott  v.  Nassau  Electric  R. 

R,  Co.,  85  Hun.  422:  440. 
McDermut  v.  Lorillard,  1  Edw.  Ch. 
273:  674 


McDonald  v.  Berry,  90  Ala.  464: 
1191. 
v.  Commonwealth,    173    Mass. 

322:  1185. 
v.  Connif,  99  CaL  386:  428. 
v.  Kirby,  3  Heisk.  607:  880. 
v.  McDonald,  96  Ky.  209:  1293. 
v.  Mont.   Wood  Co..  14  Mont. 

88:  646,  964,  979,  987. 
v.  Myles,  12  Sm.  &  M.  279:  611, 

612. 
v.  New  York,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  23 

R.  L  558:  470. 
v.  State,  80  Wis.  407:  73,   100, 
126,  605. 
McDonnell  v.  De  SotoL.  &  B.  Ass'n, 

175  Mo.  250:  135. 
McDonnough  Co.  v.  Thomas,  84  111. 

App.  408:  530,  536. 
McDonough,  In  re,  49  Fed.  360:  973. 
McDonough's  Election,  In  re,  105 

Pa.  St.  488:  1143. 
McDougal  v.  Hennepin  Co.,  4  Minn. 

184:  1102. 
McDougald  v.  Dougherty,  14  Ga. 

674:  667,  848. 
McDuffie  v.  State,  87  Ga.  687:  652. 
McEldowney  v.  Wyatt,  44  W.  Va. 

711:  210,  346,  430. 
McElwee  v.  McElwee,  97  Tenn.  649: 

10,  304 
McEvoy  v.  Humphrey,  77  111.  388: 

1266. 
McEwen  v.  Dew,  24  How.  242:  443, 
641. 
v.  Montgomery  Ins.  Co.,  5  Hill, 
104:  1305. 
McFadden  v.  Blocker,  2  Ind.  T.  260: 
1235. 
v.  Evans-Snider- Buel  Co.,   185 
U.  S.  505:  1235,  1262. 
McFarland  v.  Bank  of  State,  4  Ark. 
410:  845. 
v.  Burton,  89  Ky.  294:  1225. 


cxlvi 


0  \-i  9   0ITE1X 


to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-608;  Vol  H,  pp.  GC5-1315. 


MoFarland  v.  Butler,  8  Minn.  11G: 
1206. 
v.  I-  inaldson,  115  Ga  567:  170. 

oe,  i:  Vt.  173:  9ia 
MoFate's  Appeal,  105  Pa  St.  323: 

854 
MoFerren  v.  Umatilla  Co.,  27  Ore. 

311:  1019. 
HoOann  v.  People,  194  111.  520:  781. 
v.  People,  97  111.  App.  587:  703. 
MoGaviok  v.  State,  31  N.  J.  L.  509: 

•579. 
McGee  v.  McGann,  09  Me.  79:  1262. 

v.  McGee,  10  Ga,  177:  Oil. 
MoGeeban  v.  Burke,  37  La.  Ann. 

156:  143. 
MoGill    v.  State,  34   Ohio   St.  239: 

3,849,  355,  363. 
MoGillen  v.  Wolff,  S3  I1L  App.  227: 
168 
linn  v.  State.  40   Neb.  427:  315, 

McGinnis  v.  Mo.  Car  &  F.  Co.,  174 
Ma  225: 1311. 
v.  Ragsdale,   110  Ga.  245:  424, 

soa 

v.  State,  24  Ind.  500:  872. 
McGivney  v.  Pierce,  87  Cal.  124:  475. 
McGlade's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  338: 

1019. 
McGlasson    v.   Johnson,  86   Iowa, 

477:  1179. 
McGovern  v.  Hope,  63  N.  J.  L.  76: 

wan  v.  McDonald,  111  Cal.  57: 
002,  1195. 
v.  Met.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  57  N.  J.  L. 

:  909. 

v.  Met.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  00  N.  J.  L. 

198:  909. 
v.  Stat-,  9  Yerg.  184:  1065. 
McGrath  v.  Stat-.    10  Bid,  033:  185, 
201,  202,  222. 


MoGrath  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  P.  R  Co., 

L28  Mo.  1:  77& 
MoGraw  v.  County  Com'rs.,  89  Ala. 
407:  157. 
v.  Walker, 2  Hilt.  104:  333. 
McGrew   v.    Mo   Paa   Ky.  Co.,  87 

Mo.  App.  250:  857. 
McGruder  v.  State,  83  Ga.  616:205, 

292,527. 
McGuire  v.  Evans,  5  Ired.  Eq.  269: 
669. 
v.  State,  76  Miss.  504:1189. 
McGunnegle  v.  Allegheny  Co.,  163 

Pa  St.  589:  539. 
McGurn    v.    Board    of   Education, 

133  111.  122:  191.  273. 
Mel  tenry's  Petition,  6  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

464:  470. 
Mclnery  v.  Galveston,  58  Tex.  334: 

693. 
Mclniffe  v.  Wheelock,  1  Gray,  600: 

336. 
Mclntire  v.  Western N.  C.RR  Co., 

07  N.  C.  278:  1056. 
Mcintosh  v.  Johnson,  51  Nev.   33: 
644,  1076,  1159. 
v.  Lee,  57  Iowa,  356:  876. 
Mclnturf   v.  State,   20   Tex.    App. 

335: 1186. 
Mclntyre    v.    Ingraham,  35   Miss. 
25:  711,  717,  723,  824,  833, 
844,  884. 
v.  Marine,  93  Ind.  193:  435. 
Mclver    v.    Pagan,    2   Wheat.  29: 
1282. 
v.   State,   34  Tex.   Crim.   Rep. 
214:  741. 
McKay  v.  Fairhaven  &  W.  R  Co., 
75  Conn.  608:  702. 
v.  Trainor,  152  Pa.  St.  242:  384. 
McKean  v.  Archer,  52  Fed.  791:  430. 

v.  Wolf.  75  111.  App.  325:  815. 
McKechnie  Brewing  Co.  v.  Canan- 
daigua,  15  App.  Div.  139:703. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cxlvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


McKee  v.  McKee,  17  Md.  352:  758, 
759,  781. 
v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  287: 
694,  718,  722. 
McKee  Land  &  Imp.  Co.  v.  Swike- 
hard,  23  Misc.  21:  570,  797, 
800. 
v.  Williams,  63   App.  Div.  553: 
570,  797,  800. 
McKeen  v.  Delancy,  5   Cranch,  22: 

616,  892,  893, 902. 
McKenna   v.  Edmundstone,  91  N. 

Y.  231:  528. 
McKennie  v.  Gorman,  68  Ala.  442: 

86. 
McKennon  v.  State,  42  Tex.  Crim. 
Rep.  371:  1175. 
v.  Winn,  1  Okl.  327:  31. 
McKenzie  v.  State  11  Ark.  594:  931. 

v.  Wardwell,  61  Me.  136:  618. 
McKeon  v.  Summer,  B.  &  S.  Co.,  51 

La.  Ann.  1961:  203,  301. 
McKineron  v.  Bliss,  31  Barb.  180: 

31,  610. 
McKinney  v.  Memphis  Overton  Ho- 
tel Co.  12  Heisk.  104:  357. 
McKinnon  v.  Bliss,  21  N.  Y.  206: 
627,  872. 
v.  Cotner,  30  Ore.  588:  72, 84, 85, 
86,  87. 
McKinzie  v.  Moore,  92  Ky.  216:  109. 
McKisson  v.  Davenport,  83  Mich. 

211,  1283,  1284,  1288. 
McKune  v.  Weller,  11  Cal.  49:  1114, 

1139. 
McKuskie  v.  Hendrickson,  128  N.  Y. 

555:  1110. 
McLain  v.  Mayor,  etc.  3  Daly  32: 
625. 
v.  New  York,  3  Daly,  32:  633. 
McLaren  v.  Byrnes,  80  Mich.  275: 

1258. 
JMcLarney,  Matter  of,  90  Hun,  361: 
736. 


McLaughlin  v.  Hoover,  1  Ore.  31: 

508,  636,  845. 

v.  Menotti,  105  Cal.  572:  123. 

v.  Page,  14  Daly,  274,  528. 

v.  State,  66  Ind.  193:  1136. 

McLaughlin's  Estate,  In  re,  4  Wash. 

570,  921. 
McLean  Co.  v.  Bloomington,  106  111. 

209:  1002. 
McLellan    v.  Young,   54  Ga.  399: 

1102. 
McLelland  v.  Shaw,  15  Tex.  319: 

665,  911. 
McLeod  v.  Burroughs,  9  Ga.  213:  19, 
21,  764,  1022. 
v.  Scott,  21  Ore.  94:  1154. 
McLoughlin  v.  Raphael  Tuck  Co. 

191  U.  S.  267:  22,  964. 
M'Cluny  v.  Silliman,  3  Pet.  270:  615. 
McMahon  v.  Hodge,  2  Misc.  234: 
1058,  1254. 
v.  Mayor,  33  N.  Y.  647:  1293. 
McManning  v.  Farrar,  46  Mo.  376: 

641. 
McMannis  v.  Butler,  49  Barb.  176: 

1159,  1162. 
McManus  v.  Duluth,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 
51  Minn.  30:  1030. 
v.  Gavin,  77  N.  Y.  36:  1059. 
McMaster  v.  Advance  Thresher  Co., 
10  Wash.  147:  250,  519. 
v.  Lomax,  2  Myl.  &  K  32:  882. 
McMasters  v.  Burnett,  92  Ky.  358: 

964. 
McMechen  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  2  H.  &  J. 
41:  547. 
v.  McMechen,  17  W.  Va.  683: 
1059. 
McMicken   v.    Commonwealth,   58 

Pa.  St.  213:  759,  778. 
McMillan  v.  Bellows,  37  Hun,  214: 

562. 
McMinn  v.   Whelan,   27   Cal.  300: 
1018. 


exlviii 


fABLB   OF   CASES   CITED. 


Th<>  raferenOM  an  to  tho  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1815. 


MoMorrao  v.  Ladies  of  the  Macoa 

bees,  iw  Mich.  898:  199,249. 
MoMullen  v.  Quest,  6  Tex.  278:  443, 

561. 
IfoNabb  v.   Tonica,  103  111.   App. 

156:  552. 
McNally  v.  Field,  119  Fed.  445:  999. 
McNamar  v.  Sohwaniger,  106  Ky. 

1:  1326 
MoNamara  v.  Minn.  Cent.  Ry.  Co., 

12  Mum.  888:  042,  778, 122a 
MoNary  v.    Blackburn,    180  Mass. 

141:   1263. 
McNaughton  v.  Martin,  72  Mich. 
276:  1159,  1166. 
v.  Ticknor,  113  Wis.  555:  1160, 
1161. 
MoNear  v.  Wabash  Ky.  Co.,  42  Mo. 

App.  14:  987. 
McNeely  v.  Woodruff,  13  N.  J.  L. 

.  512. 
McNeil  v.  Collinson,  130  Mass.  167: 
1263. 
v.    Commonwealth,    12    Bush, 
727:  107,  457. 
McNichol  v.  Pacific   Exp.  Co.,  12 
Mo.  App.  401:  868. 
v.  Spence,  83  Me.  87:  1161. 
McNiel,  Ex  parte,  13  Wall.  236:  613. 
iel  v.  Holbrook,  12  Pet.  84:  613. 
McNulta  v.  Lockridge,  137  111.  270: 

1076. 
McNulty,   Ex  parte,  77  Cal.   104: 

151,  427,  965,  966. 
McNulty  v.  Batty,  10  How.  27:  553. 
MoPhail  v.  Gerry,  55  Vt.  174:  690. 
McPherson    v.   Blocker,   92    Mich. 
377:  Ml,  199,  278. 
v.  Leonard,   29   Md.    377:    110, 
117,  119. 
McQueen  v.  Middletown,  etc.  Co., 

16  John.  5:  645. 
McQuesten   v.    Morrell,   12  Wash. 
1285. 


McRae  v.  Holcomb,  46  Ark.  306: 
671,  675. 
v.  Mattoon,  13  Pick.  53:  62a 
McRee  v.  M'Lemore,  8  Heisk.  440: 

551. 
McRoberts  v.  Lyon,  79  Mich.  25: 
860,  861,  1060. 
v.  Washburne,    10    Minn.    23: 
459,  488,  918. 
McTigue  v.  Commonwealth,  99  Ky. 

06:  292,  538. 
McVey  v.  McVey,  51  Mo.  406:  527. 
McWetby  v.  Aurora  Elec.  L.  &  P. 

Co.,  202  111.  218:  1158,  1164. 
McWhorter  v.  Donald,  39  Miss.  779: 

1050,  1061. 
MoWilliam  v.  Adams.  1  Macq.  H. 

L  Cas.  120:  630,  845,  853. 
Mead  v.  Bagnall,  15  Wis.  156:  308, 
317,  542. 
v.  Stratton,  87  N.  Y.  493:  1268.. 
Meade  v.  Deputy  Marshal,  1  Brock. 
321:  664. 
v.  French,  4  Wash.  11:  529,537. 
Meadowcroft  v.  People,  163  111.  56: 
981. 
v.  Winnebago  Co.,  181  111.  504: 
757. 
Meagher  v.  Drury,  89   Iowa,  366: 

557. 
Mealey  v.  Hagerstown,  92  Md.  741: 

271. 
Mears  v.  Dexter,  86  Va.  828:  1133.. 

v.  Stewart.  31  Ark.  17:  520. 
Mecartney  v.  People,  202  111.   51: 

1163. 
Mecbam  v.   McKay,  37  Cal.  154: 

1051. 
Mechanics,  etc.  Bank's  Appeal,  31 

Cotm.  63:  673. 
Mechanics'    &  Farmers'  Bank,  31 

Conn.  63:  549. 
Mechanics'    &    Traders'    Bank    v.. 
Bridges,  30  N.  J.  L  112:  533. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cxlix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Mechanics'  &  Traders'  L  &  B.  Ass'n 

v.  People,  72  111.  App.  160: 706, 955. 

Medbury   v.    Watson,  6   Met.  246: 

1262. 
Medford  v.  Learned,  16  Mass.  215: 

641. 
Medical  College  v.  Muldoon,  46  Ala. 

603:  442,  448. 
Medley,  In  re,  134  U.  S.  160:  1175. 
Meeks  v.  Vassault,  3  Saw.  206:  1280. 
Meer  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  26  Ind. 

App.  85:  444. 
Meffert  v.  Medical  Board,  66  Kan. 

710:  11,1179. 
Meidel  v.  Anthis,71  111.241:  1265. 
Mellor   v.  Pittsburgh,  201    Pa.  St. 

397:  470. 
Melody  v.  Reab,  4  Mass.  471 :  472, 862, 

959, 1013, 1061. 
Memphis  v.  Am.  Express  Co.,  102 
Tenn.  336:205,  504. 
v.  Bing,  94  Tenn.  644:  790,  999. 
v.  Carrington,  91  Tenn.  511:  504. 
v.  Fisher,  9  Baxt,  239:  343,  357. 
v.  Laskie,  9  Heisk.  511:  1102. 
v.  Memphis  City  Bank,  91  Tenn. 

5:4:  1002,  1038. 
v.  Memphis  Sav.  Bank,  99  Tenn. 
104:  464. 
Memphis  F.  Co.  v.  Mayor,4  Cold. 419: 

72. 
Memphis  Land  &  Timber  Co.  v.  St. 
Francis  Levee  District,  64  Ark. 
25S:  1133. 
Mendon  v.  Worcester  Co.,  10  Pick. 

235:  659,  853.  912. 
Menges  v.  Dentler,  33  Pa,  St.  495: 
1233. 
v.  Frick,  73   Pa.  St.   137:    328, 
333. 
Merach  v.  Down,  64  Wis.  323:  73, 

74,  87. 
Merced  Co.  v.  Helm,  102  Cal.  159: 
999. 


Mercer  v.  Corbin,  117  Ind.  450:  956. 
v.  Ogilvy,  3  Patton,  434:   329, 

331. 
v.  State,  17  Ga.  146:  642. 
Merchant  v.  Marshfield,  35  Ore.  55: 

1154. 
Merchants'  Bank,  In  re,  2  La.  Ann. 

68:  316. 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Ballou,  98  Va. 

112:  1219. 

v.  Bliss,  13  Abb.  Pr.  225:  986. 

v.  Cook,  4  Pick.  405:  753,  958. 

Merchants'  Ins.    Co.  v.  Ritchie,  5 

Wall.  541:  553. 
Merchants'  Nat.   Bank   v.  Braith- 

waite,  7  N.  D.  358:  1283,  1287. 
Meredith  v.  Chancey,  59  Ind.  466: 
334. 
v.  Perth   Amboy,  60  N.   J.  L. 
134:  SCO. 
Meriam  v.  Harsen,  2  Barb.  Ch.  270: 

899. 
Meriwether  v.   Love,  167  Mo.  514: 

569. 
Merriam,  In  re,  84  N.  Y.  596:  1141. 
Merriam  v.  Moody's  Ex'rs,  25  Iowa, 

163:  1033. 
Merrick  v.  Kennedy,  46  Neb.  264: 

1306. 
Merrifield  v.  Robbins,  8  Gray,  150: 

620. 
Merrill   v.   Crocsman,  68  Me.  412: 
845. 
v.  Dawson,  Hempst.   563:  613, 

865. 
v.  Melchior,  30  Miss.  516:  964. 
v.  Sherburne,  1  N.  EL  203:  14, 
21,  548,  640. 
Merriman  v.  Great  No.  Exp.  Co.,  63 
Minn.  543:  464. 
v.  Peck,  95  Mich.  277:  1123. 
v.  Peck,  96  Mich.  603:  469. 
Merritt  v.   Covey,   22   Wash.   444: 
304. 


cl 


TAlil.l     OF    >   k.81  B  01  I  ED. 


Tii.-  reforanoefl  are  to  iho  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol  11,  pp.  goj-1315. 


Merritt  v.  Knife  Kails  R  Corp,,  84 
Minn.  845:  848,  418. 
v.  Whitlook,   800    Pa.    St.    50: 

Mersereau  v.  Mersereau  Co.,  51  N. 

.1.  Eq.  383:  518. 
Mersey  Steel  &  Ir.  Co.  v.  Naylor, 

L.  R.  9  Q.  R  Div.  648:  011. 
Merwin  v.  Ballard,  G6  N.  C.  398: 
643.  1228. 
v.  1'  ard  of  Com'rs,  29    Colo. 

169:  300,  674 
v.  Chicago, 45  III.  133:  1102. 
Meshke  v.  Van  Doren,  16  Wis.  319: 

624,  63a 
Meshmeier  v.   State,  11   Ind.  482: 

145,  579,  596,  (500. 

alf  v.  State.  49   Ohio  St.  586: 

428. 
Metropolitan  Asylum  Dist.  v.  Hill, 

L.  R  6  A  pp.  Caa  'JOS:  911. 
Metropolitan   Board   of   Health  v. 

Schmades.  10  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  205: 

311,  541,  543. 
Metropolitan   Board   of  Works  v. 

Steed,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  D.  447:  665, 

756. 
Metropolitan  Dist.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sharpe, 

L.  R.  5  A  pp.  Cas.  431:  662. 
Metropolitan  G.   L.  Co.,  Matter  of, 

85  N.Y.  527:  577. 
Mette  v.  Feltgen,  148  I1L  357:  543, 

685. 
Meul    v.   People,  198  111.  258:  217, 

294. 
Mewherter  v.   Price,  11   Ind.  199: 

202.  252,  255,  281. 
Mew,  In  re,  31  L.  J.  Bankruptcy, 

89:  882. 
Mewster  v.  Spalding.  6  McLean,  24: 

613. 

an   Nat.   Ry.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 
11-  Fed.  549:  193,  250. 
v.  Musette,  86  Tex.  708:  1200. 


Meyer   v.  Kalkmann,   6  Cal.   582: 
1053. 
v.  Meyer,  23  Iowa,  375:  1099. 
Meyers  v.  Kirt,  57  Iowa,  421:  1362. 
Miami  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Hiner,  54  Kan, 

334:  815. 
Miohel  v.  Michel,  5  Madd.  72:  833. 
Michell   v.  Brown.   1    E.  &  E.  267: 

481,  483,  484,  486. 
Michigan  State  Bank  v.  Hastings, 

1  Doug.  (Mich.)  227:   1193. 
Michigan  Trust  Co.  v.  Libby,  127 

Mich.  45:  1167. 

Micklethwait,  In  re,  11  Ex.  452:  999. 

Middleboro  v.  New  South  Brewing, 

etc.  Co.,  108  Ky.  351:  1003.  1007. 

Middleton  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.  Co., 

26  N.  J.  Eq.  269:  443,  445,  561. 
Middletown,    Matter  of,  82  N.  Y. 

196:  582. 
Middletown  v.  Sage,  8  Conn.  221: 

1039. 
Middletown  Road,  15  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 

167:  303,  363. 

Midland  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ambergate  Ry. 

Co.,  10  Hare,  369:  687,  1066. 

v.  Pye,  10  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  191:  1070. 

Miesen   v.  Canfield,  64  Minn.  513: 

72,  77,  90. 
Migneault  v.  Malo,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  123: 

892,  893. 
Milburn  v.  State,  1  Md.  17:  663,  693, 

729,  1077. 
Miles  v.  Benton  Tp.,  11  S.  D.  450: 
303. 
v.  Commonwealth,  16  Ky.  L.  R. 

92:  557. 
v.  McDermott,  31  Cal.  272:  335. 
v.  State,  40  Ala.  39:  481,  £84. 
v.  Utah,  22  Utah,  55:  703. 
v.  Wells,   22    Utah,    55:    1153. 

1154. 
v.  Williams,   1   P.    Wms.    249: 
803. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cli 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Miles  v.  Woodward,  115  Cal.  308: 

428. 
Milford  v.  Worcester,  7  Mass.  48: 

930. 
Miller,  Matter  of,  47  Hun,  394:  1159, 

1166. 
Miller,  Matter  of,    110   N.  Y.   216: 

1159,  1166. 
Miller  v.  Avery,  2  Barb.  Ch.  582:  869. 
v.  Berry,  101  Ala.  531 :  453. 
v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  68  Miss. 

88:  1015. 
v.  Camden,  64  N.  J.  L.  201:  429. 
v.  Craig,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  175:  1019. 
v.  Curry,  113  Cal.  644:  539. 
v.  Davis.  106  Mich.  300:  1170. 
v.  Edwards,   8   Colo.    528:  458, 

469. 
v.  Fiery,  8  Gill,  147:  19. 
v.  Goodwin,  70  111.  659:  72. 
v.  Graham,  17  Ohio  St,  1:  642: 

1228. 
v.  Grandy,  13  Mich.  540:  1095. 
v.  Hageman,  114  Iowa,  195:  545, 

1216. 
v.  Hixon,  64  Ohio  St.  39:  1171. 
v.  Hurford,  11  Neb.  377:  107. 
v.  Kirk patrick,  29  Pa.  St,  226: 

923. 
v.  Maujer,   82   App.    Div.   419: 

713,  743,  914. 
v.  McKeon,  15   App.  Div.   133: 

444. 
v.  McQuerry,   5  McLean,   469: 

865. 
v.  Mercier,  3  Mart.   (N.  S.)  236: 

522. 
v.  Miller,  16  Mass.  59:  642. 
v.  Miller,  44  Pa.  St.  170:  921. 
v.  Moore,    1  E.  D.  Smith,  739: 

642,  1200. 
v.  Preston,  4  N.  M.  396:  1127. 
v.  Reynolds,   5    Mart.    (N.     S.) 
605:  1158. 


Miller  v.  Ruble,  107  Pa.  St.  395:  1142. 
v.Salomons,  7  Ex.  560:  630,701, 

702,  704  705,  730,  794 
v.  State,  33  Miss.  356:  462. 
v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475:  84  85, 

93,  96,  188. 
v.  Tod,. 95  Tex.  404:  1038. 
v.  Toledo  Grain  &  Milling  Co., 

21  Ohio  C.  C.  325:  964 
v.  United  States,  6  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  6:  766. 
v.  Went  worth,  82  Pa.  St.  280: 
1142. 
Millered  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  9  How.   Pr. 

238:  862. 
Miller's  Case,  1  W.  Black.  451:  553, 

554 

Mills  v.  Charleston,  60  S.  C.  1:  1161. 

v.  Charleton,  29  Wis.  400:  232, 

v.  Detroit,  95  Mich.  422:  1145. 

v.  La  Verne  Land  Co.,  97  Cal. 

254:  1109,  1254. 
v.  Sanderson,  68  Ark.  130:  530, 

537. 
v.  Scott,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  496:  940. 
v.St.  Clair  Co.,  8    How.   581: 

1020,  1021. 
v.  Thurston  Co.,  16  Wash.  378: 

994. 
v.  Wilkins,  6  Mod.  62:  630,  648. 
v.  Williams,    11   Ired.    L.   558: 
1028,  1193. 
Mills   Co.   v.    Brown   Co.,   87  Tex. 

475:  274 
Millvale  v.  Evergreen  Ry.  Co.,  131 

Pa.  St.  1:  232. 
Milne  v.  Huber,  3  McLean,  212:  564 
Milton  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa,  78:  643. 
Milwaukee    Co.    v.    Isenring,    109 

Wis.  9:  73, 100,  279,  354,  407. 
Milwaukee,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.   v.  Fari- 
bault, 23  Minn.  167:  1044. 
v.  Milwaukee,  34  Wis.  271:  1003. 
Mims  v.  Swartz,  37  Tex.  13:  865. 


clii 


TAKI.K    OF    CASKS    (I  1  1 1 1 >_ 


The  rafaranow  km  to  tin'  pages:  Vol.  i,  pp.  1-408;  Vol.  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


.  v.  Clark,  1.")  Wend.  125: 1805. 
v.  Justice's    Ct..  101    Cal.  001: 
1 1 5. 
Miners1  Bank  v.  United  States,  1 

Iowa),  558:  1031,  1198. 
Minet  v.  Leman,  00  Beav.  2G9:  910, 

931,  L07a 
Minis  v.  United  States,  15  Pet.  445: 

663,  871. 
Minneapolis   Brewing   Co.   v.    Mc- 

Gellivray,  104  Fed.  258:  176. 
Minneapolis  Co.  of  Co.  v.  "William- 
son. 51  Minn.  53:  703. 
Minneapolis  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Min- 
neapolis. 36  Minn.  159:  1030. 
Minneapolis  &  N.  El.  Co.  v.  Traill 

Co.,  9  N.  D.  213:  429. 
Minneapolis  &  St  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Beckwith,  109  U.  S.  26:  411. 
v.  Herrick.  107  U.  S.  210:  417. 
Minnehaha  Co.  v.  Champion,  5  Dak. 
433:  101. 
v.   Tliorne,   6    S.    D.    449:   404, 
406. 
Minnesota  &  Mont.  L.  &  J.  Co.  v. 
Billings,  111  Fed.  972:  436,  10J0. 
Minor  v.  Cardwell,  37  Mo.  350:  23, 
25. 
v.  Marshall,  G  N.  M.  194:  1053, 

1254,  1055. 
v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet.  46: 
729,  1140,  1154. 
Minot  v.  Winthrop,  162  Mass.  113: 

Mintner  v.  Bradstreet  Co.,  174  Mo. 

444:  1159. 
Min turn  v.  Larue,  23  How.  435: 1010, 

.  :033. 
Mintzer  v.  Schilling,  117  Cal.  361: 

39L 
Mirehouse  v.  Rennell,  1  Ci.  &  F. 

546:  700,  705. 
Misch  v.  Russell,  130  111.  22:    815, 

828.  - 


Mississippi,  etc.  Co.  v.   Prince,  10 

Am.  &  Eng.  C.  Cas.  391: 

1-0.  252. 
v.  Prince.  34  Minn.  71:  201.  203. 
v.  Prince,  34  Minn.  79:  581. 
Mississippi  IMv.  &  B.  T.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Jones,  54  Mo.  App.  529:  937. 
Missouri,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  K.  P.  R. 

R.  Co.,  97  U.  S.  491:  1006. 
v.  McGlamory,  92  Tex.  150:  315. 
v.  Simonson,  64  Kan.  800:  0,  10. 

578. 
Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Douglas,  2 

Tex.  Ct.  App.  32:  8S8. 
v.  Harrelson,  44  Kan.  253:  260. 
v.  Humes,  115  U.  S.  512:  414 
v.  Lee.  70  Tex.  496:  1292. 
v.  Mac  key,  107  U.  S.  205:  417. 
v.  Park,  66  Kan.  248:  490. 
Mitchel  v.  United  States,  9  Pet.  711: 

34. 
Mitchell  v.   Blanchard,  72  Vt.  85: 

752:  764. 
v.  Camphell,  19  Ore.   193:   72, 

131. 
v.  Colo.  M.  &  E.  Co.,  12  Cola 

App.  277:  198. 
v.  Doggett,  1  Fla.  356:  547. 
v.  Duncan,  7  Fla.  13:  484,  498, 

636.  845,  854,  1057,  1149. 
v.  Halsey,  15  Wend.  241:  521. 
v.  Lasseter,  114  Ga.  275:  058. 
v.  Maxwell,  2  Fla.  594:  942. 
v.  Mitchell,  1  Gill.  00:  644,1248, 

1251. 
v.  Mitchell,  5  Modd.  72:  723. 
v.  Rockland,  45  Me.  496:  1014. 
v.  Slate,  134  Ala.  392:  153,  225. 

249. 
v.  Tucker,  10  Mo.  262:  34. 
v.  Union  Electric  Co.,  70  N.  H. 

569:  1023. 
v.  Wells.  37  Miss.  235:  617. 
v.  Winkek,  117  Cal.  520:  13, 132. 


TABLE   OF   CASES   CITED. 


cliii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I  ,pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Mitchell  v.  Witt,  98  Va,  459:  845. 
v.  Woodson,  37  Miss.  567:  327. 
Mitford  v.  Elliott,  8  Taunt.  13:  683. 
Mixer  v.  Sibley,  53  111.  61:  1016. 
Mobile  v.  Louisville,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 
124  Ala.  132:  258. 
v.  Rowland,  26  Ala.  498:  1102. 
v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  305:  1213. 
Mobile,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Com'rs  Ct., 
97  Ala.  105:  239. 
v.  Malone,  46  Ala,  391:  845. 
v.  State,  29  Ala.  573:  308,  577. 
v.   Thompson,   101   Tenn.    197: 

741,  1312. 
v.  Whitney,  39  Ala.  471:  2£ 
Mobile  Sav.  Bank  v.  Patty,  16  Fed. 

751:  54a 
Mobile  Trans.  Co.  v.  Mobile,  128  Ala. 

335:  185,  203,  211,  299. 
Modawell  v.  Holmes,  40  Ala.  391: 

880. 
Modern  Woodmen  v.  Wieland,  109 

111.  App.  340:  1161,  1170. 
Modoc  Co.  v.  Spencer,  103  Cal.  498: 

1028. 
Moeller  v.  Harvey,  16  Phila.  66:  804. 
Moers  v.  Reading,  21  Pa.  St.  189: 

170. 
Mohawk  Bridge  Co.  v.  Utica,  etc. 

R  R.  Co:  6  Paige,  554:  548. 
Mohawk,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  Matter  of,  19 

Wend.  143:  1129. 
Mohrman  v.   State,   105   Ga.   709: 

973. 

Moll ie  Gibson  Consol.  Min.  &  Mil. 

Co.  v.  Sharp,  23  Colo.  259: 

211. 

v.  Sharp,  5  Colo.  App.  321:  300. 

Monaghan  v.  State,  66  Miss.  513: 

1277. 
Monat  Lumber  Co.  v.  Gilpin,  4  Colo. 

App.  534:  730. 
Monck  v.  Hilton,  2  Ex.  Div.  2fiS:  711. 
Monet  v.  Jones,  10  S.  &  M.  237:  457. 


Monett  v.  Beaty,  79  Ma  App.  315: 

1159,  1164. 
Mongeon  v.  People.  55  N.  Y.  613:  19, 
457,  462, 483,  484,  558,  561, 663,  681. 
Monk  v.  Jenkins,  2  Hill's  Ch.  12: 

1049,  1135. 
Mon  Luck,  Ex  parte,  29  Ore.  421: 

303. 
Monroe  v.  Douglass,  5  N.  Y.  447:  612, 
869. 
v.  Paddock,  75  Ind.  422:  331. 
Monroe  Co.  v.  McDaniel,  68  Miss. 

203:  516. 
Monroe  Co.  Com'rs  v.  May,  67  Ind. 

562:  872. 
Monson   v.  Chester,  22  Pick.   385: 

1014,  1059. 
Montague  v.  Smith,  17  Q.  B.  688: 778. 

v.  State,  54  Md.  481 :  63a 
Montana  O.  P.  Co.  v.  Lindsay,  25 

Mont.  24:  1154. 

Montclair  v.  New  York,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

45  N.  J.  Eq.  436:  433,  1195. 

v.  Ramsdell,  107  U.  S.  147:  193, 

194,  201,  204. 

Montel  v.  Consolidated  Coal  Co.,  39 

Md.  164:517. 
Montford  v.  Allen,  111  Ga.  18:  527. 
Montgomery  v.  Board  of  Education, 
71  Ga.  41 :  465. 
v.  Commonwealth,  82  111.  267: 

402. 
v.  Commonwealth,  91   Pa.  St 

125:  401,  403. 
v.  Deeley,  3  Wis.  709:  867. 
v.  Hobson,    Meigs,    437:    1230, 

1231. 
v.  Kasson,  16  Cal.  189:  1192. 
v.  Plank  R.  Co.,  31  Ala.  76:  627. 
v.  State,  88  Ala.  141:277. 
v.  State,  107  Ala.  372:  432. 
v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  618:  555. 
Montgomery  B.  B.  Works  v.  Gaston, 
126  Ala.  425:  75,  80,  87. 


TAB!  1:    01    0A81  -    CITED. 


Th<-  references  :wo  t,.  the  i  ages:  Vol.  l.  pp  I  008;  VoL  II,  pp.  C05-1315. 


Montg  m  r\  i  . '.  I  om'ra  v,  * 

Kan.  A i  p.  286:  '■"■'<.  "49. 
Montgomery  Co.  Fi  ;cal  Cfc,  \.  Trim- 
ble, 101  Ky.  639:  1301. 
Montgomery  M.  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v. 
Robinson,  69  Ala    113:   185,  188, 
190,  199,  204,  321. 
Montoursville    Overs  era  v.   Fair- 
field Overseers,  112   Pa  St.   99: 
1143. 
Montpelier   v.  Senior,  72   Vt.   112: 

1157,  1160,  1! 
Montrose  Tit  rage,  1  Macq.  H.  L.  C. 

101:  63a 
M.'iu\  illev.  llaughton,  7  Conn.  543: 
1134 
ir  v.  Covington  City  Nat.  Bank, 
Ky.  305:  329. 

y  v.  Seaman,  10  Mich.  74:  444, 
564. 
v.  State.  48  Ala.  115:  52,  71,  78, 

381,  883 
v.  Threlkeld,  13  Ga  55:  1073. 
Mooers  v.  Bunker,  29  N.  H.  420:  930. 
I  v.  Randolph,  77  Ala,  397:  52, 
71,  78,  87,  634,893. 
Moon  v.  Durden,  2  Ex.  22:  G41,  1163, 

1170. 
Mooney  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  60 

Iowa,  34G:  28. 
Moore,  Ex  parte,  62  Ala.  471:  201, 

252,  581. 
Moore,  In  re,  81  Fed.  356:  240. 
Moore  v.    Beauian,    111  N.  C.   328: 
111)1.  • 
v.  Brown,  11   How.  (U.  8.)  414: 

1135. 
v.  Burdett,  62  N.  J.  L.  1<; 
v.  Chicago  G.  F.  L.  Soc,  178  III. 

202:  1158. 
v.  Cooley,  2  Hill,  412:  1055. 
v.  Gwynn,  5  Ired.  187:  623. 
v.    Indianapolis,    120  Ind.  483: 
1111. 


Moore  v.  Keuockee,  75  Mich. 
445. 
v.  Luce,  29  Pa.  St.  260:  1213. 
v.  Mausert,  49  N.  Y.  332:  448, 

443,  459. 
v.  Maxwell,  18  Ark.  469:  626. 
v.  MoClief,  16  Ohio  St.  51:  1056. 
v.  Minneapolis,  43  Minn,  418: 

467.  527,  529. 
v.  Moore,  23  Pa,  Supr.  Ct.  73: 

239. 
v.  New  Orleans,  32  La   Ann. 

726:  457,  601. 
v.  People,  146  111.  600:  830. 
v.  PoliceJury,32La.  Ann.  1013: 

250. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  34  Wis.  173:519. 
v.  Ripley,  106  Ga  556: 1169, 1225. 
v.   State,  63  Neb.  345:  576,  579. 
v.  State,  43  N.  J.  L.  203:  1178,. 

1211,  1218. 
v.  Usher,  10  Eng.  Ch.  107:  628. 
v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  87 
Ga.  613:  972. 
Moore's  Lessee  v.  Vance,  1  Ohio,  1: 

473. 
Moran  v.  St.   Paul,  54  Minn.  279: 

1019. 
Moraut  v.  Taylor,  1  Ex.  Div.   194: 

630,  648. 
Moreau  v.  Monmouth,  6S  N.  J.  L. 

480:  6,  8. 
Moreland  v.  Millen,  126  Mich.  381: 

579. 
Morford  v.  Unger,  8  Iowa,  82:  202, 

204,  231,  242,  276. 
Morgan,  In  re,  26  Colo.  415:  417. 
Morgan  v.  Bolles,  36 Conn.  175:  1062, 
1294. 
v.  Crawshay,  L  R.  5  H.  L.  304: 

809,  886,  893. 
v.  Davenport,  60  Tex.  230:  784. 
v.  Des  Moiues,  54  Fed.  456:  304, 
447. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


civ 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Morgan  v.  Des  Moines,  60  Fed.  2C3: 
703,  744. 
v.  Hedstrom,    164    N.  Y.    224: 

444,  744. 
v.  Monmouth  P.  R  Co.,  23  N. 

J.  L.  99:  5S2. 
v.  Nolte.  37  Ohio  St.  23:  423. 
v.  Smith,  4  Minn.  104:  6S4. 
v.  Snell,  5  Bin.  318:  310. 
v.  State,  12  Ind.  448:  872. 
v.  State,  51  Neb.  672:  783,  786. 
v.  Thorne,  7  M.  &  W.  400:  545, 
533. 
Mo;  lay  v.  Greenhalgh,  3  B.  &  S. 
374:  837. 
v.  Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co., 
14G  U.  S.  162:  1211,  1212. 
Morlot  v.  Lawrence,  1  Blatch.  60S: 

472. 
Mormon  Church  v.  United  States, 

136  U.  S.  1:  42. 
Morrall   v.   Sutton,    11  Phila.  533: 
„    464,  747. 

Morrill  v.  Smith  Co.,  89  Tex.  529: 
1033. 
v.  State,  38  Wis.  434:  683. 
Morris  v.   Barrett,  97  E.  C.  L.  R. 
139:  337. 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,    65 

Iowa,  727:  28. 
v.Davidson,   49  Ga.   361:    606, 

865. 
v.  Hitchcock,     21     App.     Cas. 

(D.  C.)  563:  465. 
v.  Ocean  Tp.,  61   N.  J.  L.    12: 

427. 
v.  People,    4    Colo.    App.    136: 

730,  797. 
v.  State,  62  Tex.  728: 1230, 1232. 
v.  Tripp,  111  Iowa,  113:  12S3. 
v.  Va.  Ins.  Co.,  85  Va.  588:  304. 
v.  Vanderen,  1  Dall.  64:  31. 
v.  Van  Voast,    19    Wend.  283: 
10S7,  1242. 


Morris  Aqueduct  v.  Jones,  36  N.  J. 

K  206:  645. 
Morris  Canal,   etc.  Co.    v.  Central 
R.  R.  Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  419:    1022. 
Morris  &  Essex  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Central 

R.  R  Co..  31  N.  J.  L.  205:  1043. 
Morris,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Newark,  10 

N.  J.  Eq.  352:  1044. 

Morrison  v.  Bachert,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

153:  404. 

v.  Backert,  112  Pa.  St.  322:  406. 

v.  Barksdale,  Harper,  101:  893. 

v.  Carey-Lombard  Co.,  9  Utah, 

70:  731,  732. 
v.  Fake,  1  Pin.  (Wis.)  133: 1050. 
v.  Fayette  Co.,  127  Pa.  St.  110: 

528,  530. 
v.  Lawrence,    CS     Mass.     219: 

1139. 
v.  People,  196  111.  454:  231. 
v.  Pepperman,  112   Iowa,  471: 

1138. 
v.  Rice,  35  Minn.  436:  462. 
v.  Springer,  15  Iowa,  304:  927. 
v.  State,  40  Ark.  448:  577. 
v.  Stevenson,  69  Ala.  44S:  781. 
v.  St.   Louis,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  96 

Mo.  602:  433. 
v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  598:  941. 
Morrisse  v.  Royal  British  Bank,  1 

C.  B.  (N.  S.)  67:  443,  11^8,  1149. 
Morrow    v.    Rosenstihl    Bros.,  106 
Ala.  198:  1306. 
v.  Wood,  56  Ala.  1:  1090. 
Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  231:  642, 
1200. 
v.  Presby,  25  N.  H.  302:  1048. 
v.  State,  6  Conn.  9:  753. 
v.  Williamson,  35    Barb.    472: 
1137. 
Mortimer    v.   Chambers,   63   Hun, 

335:  444. 
Mortland  v.  State,  52  N.  J.  L.  521: 
302,  404,  406. 


olvi  TABLE   OF   OASES   CITED. 

Tin'  raferenoea  are  to  the  pagea:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Morton  v.  Broderiok,  US  Cal.  471: 
781 
v.  Onion,  16  Vt  1 US:  1897. 

Bfosby    v.   Ins.   Co..  31   Gratt  629: 

459. 
Moseley  v.  Mast  in.  87  Ala,  216:  879. 
v.  Tift.  4  Flu.  403:   1000. 

v.   White,  2'.i  Mich.  59:  635. 
-  v.    Mayor,  etc.,  52  Ala.  19S: 

203. 
v.  United  States,  16  A  pp.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)-I23:  741,  975. 
Moaier  v.  Hilton,  15  Barb.  657:  221, 

340. 
Mosley  v.  Vt.  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.,  55  Vt. 

142:  880. 
Mostyn  v.  Fabrigas,  1  Cowper,  174: 

611. 
Mott  v.  Hubbard,  59  Ohio  St.  199: 

401,  407. 
Moulton  v.  McLean,  5  Colo.  App. 

454:  971. 
Moulton  v.   Posten,  52  Wis.    169: 

876. 

Mound   City   Construction    Co.  v. 

Macgurn,  97  Mo.  App.  403:  1012. 

Mounsey    v.    Ismay,    3    EL    &    C. 

497:  808. 

v.  Ismay,  34  L,  J.  Ex.  56:  882. 

Mount  v.   Kesterson,  6  Cold.  452: 

1116. 
Mountain  Grove  Bank  v.  Douglas 

Co.,  148  Mo.  42:  907. 
Mouras  v.   A.   C.   Brewer,  17   La. 

Ann.  82:  555. 
Moutray    v.   People,   182    III.  194: 

98a 
Moviufl  v.  Arthur,  95  U.  S.  144:  463, 

Moyce  v.   Newington,  4  Q.  B.  Div. 

729. 
Moyer  v.  Gross,  2  P.  &  W.  171:  882. 
v.  Penn.  Slate   Co.,  71  Pa.  St. 
293:  1019. 


Moyle  v.  Jenkins,  51  L.  J.  Q.  B.  112: 
666. 
v.  Jenkins,  LR.8Q.B.D.  116: 
718. 
Moynihan's  Appeal,  75  Conn.  358: 

ft 
Mt  Holley  Paper  Co.'s  Appeal,  99 

Pa.  St.  513:  845. 
Mt.  Joy  v.  Turnpike  Co.,  182  Pa.  St 

581:  232,  267. 
Mt.  Vernon  v.  Evans,  etc,  Co.,  204 

111.32:  339,345. 
Mudgett  v.  Liebes,  14  Wash.  482: 

524. 
Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.  623: 

1019. 
Muhl's  Adm'r  v.  Mich.  So.  R  R.  Co., 

10  Ohio  St.  272:  1291. 

Muir  v.  Galloway,  61  Cal.  498:  337. 

v.  Keay,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  594:  804. 

Muldoon  v.  Levi,  25  Neb.  457:  223. 

Mulford  v.  Clewell,  21  Ohio  St.  191: 

1265,  1266,  1267. 
Mulkey  v.  State,  16  Tex.  App.  53: 

555. 
Mullaly  v.  Mayor,  6  T.  &  C.  168: 

1246. 
Mullan  v.  State,  114  Cal.  578:  115. 
Mullen  v.  People,  31  I1L  444:  481, 
484,  636. 
v.  State,  34  Ind.  540:  224 
Mulligan  v.  Cavanaugh,  46  N.  J.  L. 

45:  516. 
Mull  in  v.  McCreary,  54  Pa.  St.  230: 

862. 
Mullins  v.  Treasurer,  LR.5  Q.  B. 

D.  170:  671,  674. 
Mulnix  v.  Spratlin,  10  Colo.  App. 

390:  1202. 
Multnomah  Co.  v.  Kelly,  37  Ore.  1: 

917,  1311. 
Munday  v.  Rah  way,  43  N.  J.  L.  338: 

1199. 
Mundy  v.  Monroe,  1  Mich.  68:  1210. 


TABLE   OF   OASES    CITED. 


clvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Mnnford  v.  Peaver,   70  Ala.   452: 

627. 
Municipal   Bld'g  Soc.  v.  Kent,   L. 

R.  9  App.  Cas.  273:  697,  1071. 
Municipality  v.  Hart,  6  La.  Ann. 

570:  1103. 
Municipality  No.  3  v.  Michoud,  6 
La.   Ann.  605:  190,  252,  581.  1217, 
1218. 
Munn  v.  Burcta,  25  111.  35:  868. 

v.  Citizens'  Bank,  107  Ky.  262: 

191. 
v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113:  1019. 
Munro  v.  Butt,  8E.&B.  754:  916. 
Munroe  v.  Guilleaume,  3  Keyes,  30: 

619. 
Munson  v.  Hallo  well,  26  Tex.  475: 

784. 
Murdock  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  33 
W.  Va.  407:  1160, 1229. 
v.  Memphis,  20  Wall.  590:  516, 
521. 
Murdock's  Petition,  149  Pa.  St.  341: 

528,  536. 
Murfree  v.  Carmack,  4  Yerg.  270: 

327. 
Murnane  v.  St.  Louis,  123  Mo.  479: 

373,  375,  376,  397. 

Murphy,  In  re,  23  N.  J.  L.  180:  930. 

Murphy,  In  re,  1  Woolw.  141:  1178. 

Murphy     v.    Commonwealth,    172 

Mass.  264:  1188. 

v.  County  Com'rs,  73  Minn.  28: 

504. 
v.  Leader,  4  Irish,  L.  143:  1251. 
v.  Louisville,  24  Ky.  L.  R  1574: 

301,  468. 
v.  Pacific  Bank,  119  Cal.  334: 

578,  002. 
v.  Pacific  Bank,  130  Cal.  542: 

425,  764. 
v.  People,  120  III  234:  791. 
v.  Preston,  5  Mac  key,  514:  lflfiO. 
t.  Preston,  16  Mackey,514:  (J31. 


Murphy  v.  Utter,  186  U.  S.  95:  43, 

5G8. 
Murray   v.  Baker,  3  Wheat.   541: 
1279. 
v.  Board  of  Co.  Com.,  81  Minn. 

359:  367. 
v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  432: 1199. 
v.  County  Com'rs,  81  Minn.  359: 

354,  404.  407. 
v.Gibson,    15   How.    421:    443, 

664. 
v.  Hoboken  jj.  L  Co.,  18  How. 

284:  148. 
v.  Hobson,  10  Colo.  66:  797. 
v.  Keyes,  35   Pa.  St.  384:  757, 

778. 
v.  Mattison,  63  Vt.  479:  1226. 
v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  4 

Keyes,  274:  1244. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  4  Keyes,  274: 

693,  729. 
v.  State,  112  Ga.  7:  300. 
Murray  Hill  Bank,  Matter  of,  153 

N.  Y.  199:  533. 
Murray's  Lessee  v.  Hoboken,  etc. 

Co.,  18  How.  272:  14. 
Muscogee  R  R.  Co.  v.  Neal,  26  Ga, 

121:  447. 
Musgrove  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  50  Miss.  677:  456,  544,  545, 
549,  552. 
Mushlit  v.  Silverman,  50  N.  Y.  360: 

1254. 
Music  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

114  Mo.  309:  530. 
Musick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

114  Mo.  309:  745. 
Mutual  Aid  L.  &  L  Co.  v.  Logan, 

55  S.  C.  294:  1160.  1161,  1191. 
Mutual  Ass'n  Society  v.  Watts,  1 

Wheat.  279:  620. 
Mutual    Benefit  Life  Ins.   Co.    v. 
Winne,   20    Mont.   20:    452,   776, 
1172,  1231,  1236. 


clviii 


TABLE   OF    OASES    OJ  FED. 


Tlu>  retereaoea  are  tothe  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  I  808;  Vol.  n.  pp.  805  1815. 


Myer  v.  Car  Ca,  103  U.  S.  1:  521, 

Myers  v.  Boy  I,  in  Ind.  496:  906. 
v.  Commonwealth,  90  Va.  785: 

11  GO. 
v.  Conway,  55  Iowa,  166:  1268 
v.  Kariv'.l.  17  Miss,  381:   1050. 
v.  Kirt.  68  Iowa.  124:    1  . 
v.  Manhattan   Bank,  20  Ohio, 

295:  17. 
t.  Marshall   Co.,  55  Miss.  344: 

51S. 
v.  MoGavock,  39  Neb.  843:  785. 
v.  Perigal,  2  D.  Mac.  &  G.  619: 

v.  State.  1  Conn.  502:  616. 
Mysiok  v.  Hasey,  27  Me.  17:  030. 

K 

Nalle  v.  Ventress,  19  La.  Ann.  373: 

611. 
Nance  v.  Anderson  Co.,  60  S.  C.  501: 

343.  407. 
Nanz  v.  Park  Co.,  103  Teun.  299: 

1255. 
Napa  State  Hospital  v.  Yuba  Co., 

188  Cal.  378:  428. 
Napier  v.  Hodges,  31  Tex.  287:  853. 
Narragang  v.  Brown  Co.,  14  S.  D. 

357:  00. 
Nash  v.  Allen,  4  Q.  B.  784:  651. 
v.  Mitchell,  8  Hun,  471:  941. 
v.  State,  2  Greene  (Iowa),  286: 

1253. 
v.  Sullivan,  29  Minn.  206:  1026. 
v.  White's   Bank,  37  Hun,  57: 
412,  443. 
Nashua  Sav.  Bank   v.   An-lo-Am. 
etc.  Co.,  189  U.  S.  221:  618. 

vi lie,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Foster, 

10  Lea,  351 :  27. 
v.  Jones,  100    Tenn.   512:    931, 
1072, 


Nason  v.  Poor  Directors,  126  Pa.  St 

445:  303. 
National  Bank  v.  Barber,  21   Kan. 
584:  577. 
v.  Bryant,  13  Bush.  419:  878. 
v.  Commissioners,  14  Fed.  239: 

v.  Matthews,  98  U.  S.  621:  922. 
v.  Southern,  etc.  Co.,  55  Ga.  36: 

203. 
v.  Whitney,  103  U.  S.  99:  921. 
v.  Williams,  38  Fla.  305:  560. 
v.  Williams, 46  Mo.  17:  335,836. 
v.  Yankton  Co.,  101  U.  S.  129: 
159,  032. 
National  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Au- 
gusta Cotton  Comp.  Co.,  104  Ga„ 
403:  428,  468. 
National  Bank  of  Com.  v.  Ripley, 

161  Mo.  126:  834,835,  841. 
National  Guard,  In  re,  71  Vt.  493: 

711,  887,  890. 
National  Land  &  Loan  Co.  v.  Mead, 

60  Vt.  257:  104. 
National  Lead  Co.  v.  Croto  Paint 

Store  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.  247:  935. 
National   Mut.    B.   &   L.    Ass'n    v. 

Pinkerton,  79  Miss.  468:  672. 
National  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baker,  (1893)  2 

Ch.  186:  146. 
Nations  v.  Lovejoy,  80  Miss.  401: 
545,  1228. 
v.  State,  64  Ark.  467:  444,  44G, 
956. 
Naught  v.  Oneal,  1  111.  36:  547. 
Nay  lor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  L  237:  507. 
Nazareth  L.  B.  I.  v.  Commonwealth, 

14  B.  Mon.  266:  513. 
Nazro  v.   Merchants'   Ins.   Co.,   14 

Wis.  205:  651,  796. 
Neaderhouser  v.  State,  28  Ind.  257: 

877. 
Neagle,  In  re,  39  Fed.  833:  942. 
Neal  v.  Burrows,  34  Ark.  491:  1116. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-131j. 


Neal  v.  Moultrie,  12  Ga.  104:  1279. 
v.  Roberts,  1  Dev.  &  B.  L.  81 : 

927. 
v.  Sawyer,  60  Ga.  352:  1098. 
v.  State,  32  Neb.  120:  569. 
Neary  v.   Philadelphia,  etc.   R.  R. 

Co.,  7  Houst.  419:  693,  708. 
Neass  v.  Mercer,  15  Barb.  318: 1210. 
Neatherly  v.  People,  24  111.  App.  273: 

468. 
Nebraska  L.  &  B.  Ass'n  v.  Perkins, 

61  Neb.  254:  186,  302,  448,  451. 
Neelds'  Road,  1  Pa.  St.  353:  844. 
Neelly  v.  Lancaster,  47  Ark.  175: 

1061. 
Neely  v.  State,  4  Baxt,  174:  593. 
Neenan  v.  Smith,  50  Mo.  525:  910, 

914 
Neeves  v.  Burrage,  14  Ad.  &  EL 

(U.  S.)  504:  605. 
Negro  Eell  v.  Jones,  10  Md.  322: 

710. 
Negrotts  v.  Monett,  49  Mo.  App. 

286:  510. 
Ne-ha-sa-ne  Park  Ass'n  v.  Lloyd,  7 

App.  Div.  359:  1236. 
Neifing  v.  Pontiac,  56  111.  172:  228. 
Neitzel  v.  Concordia,  14  Kan.  446: 

687. 
Nelden  v.  Clark,  20  Utah,  382:  474. 
Nellis  v.  Clark,  4  Hill,  424:  938. 
Nelson  v.  Allen,  1  Yerg.  360:  887, 
891,  893. 
v.  Fightmaster,  4  Okl.  38:  1259. 
v.  Gibson,  92  111.  App.  595: 1158. 
v.  Haywood  Co.,  91  Tenn.  596: 

72,  84,  90,  94. 
v.  Kerr,  2  T.  &  C.  299:  687. 
v.  McCrary,  60  Ala.  301:  29, 609, 

643,  1200. 
v.  State,  111  Wis.  394:  1276. 
v.  Stull,  65  Kan.  585:  784. 
v.  Sykes,  44  Minn.  68:  559. 
v.  Troy,  11  Wash.  434:  158,  434. 


Neport  M.  Trustees,  Ex  parte,  16 

Sim.  346:  939. 
N.  E.  Ry.  v.  Leadgate,  LR.5Q.  B. 

161:  1109. 
Nesbitt  v.  Lushington,  4  T.  R.  783: 

808. 
Nester  v.  Busch,  64  Mich.  657:  252. 
Neuendorf!  v.  Duryea,  69  N.  Y.  557: 

20S,  253. 
Neuerberg  v.  Gaulter,  4  111.  App. 

348:  1275. 
Nevada  School  Dist.  v.  Shoecraft, 

88  Cal.  372:  340. 
Nevil  v.  Clifford,  63  Wis.  435:  402. 
New  v.  McKechnie,  95  N.  Y.  632: 

1265. 
New  Albany,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Con- 
nelly, 7  Ind.  32:  917. 
Newark  v.  Funk,  15  Ohio  St.  462: 
1103. 
v.  Mt.  Pleasant  Cem.  Co.,  58  N. 

J.  L.  168:  250,  469. 
v.  Orange,  55  N.  J.  L  514:  203, 
271. 
Newark  Plank  R.  Co.  v.  Elmer,  9 

N.  J.  Eq.  754:  1022. 
Newbert  v.  Fletcher,  84  Me.  408: 

707. 
New  Brighton  v.  Biddell,  201  Pa. 

St,  96:  303. 
New  Brunswick  v.  Williamson,  44 

N.  J.  L.  165:  533. 
Newburgh   Turn   Co.  v.  Miller,   5 

John.  Ch.  113:  1155. 
Newburyport  Water  Co.  v.  New- 

buryport,  113  Fed.  677:  1194. 
Ne why's  Adm'r  v.  Blakey,  3  H  & 

M.  57:  1211. 
Newell  v.  People,  7  N.  Y.  97:  916. 
v.  Wheeler,  48  N.  Y.  486:  862. 
Newgass  v.  Atlantic  &  D.  Ry.  Co., 

56  Fed.  676:  176,  307. 
New  Hannover  Co.  v.  Derosset,  129 

N.  C.  275:  82,  92,  93. 


clx 


TABLE   OF   OASES   CI  I  BD. 


Th«  raferaooea  are  to  tho  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Now  Haven  v.  Whitney,  36  Conn. 

.  917,  92tt 
New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cranch, 

164:  1198. 
New  Jersey  So.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Long 
Branch  Coui'rs,  89  N.  J.  L.  28: 
1044. 
Newland  v.  Marsh,  19  111  370:  757, 

837,  928. 
New  London  v.  Brainard,  22  Conn. 

653:  1033,  1035. 
New  London  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boston, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  102  Mass.  386:  462, 
551,  554. 
Newman.    Ex   parte,  9    Cal.    502: 

925. 
Newman  v.  Emporia,  41  Kan.  583: 
369,  385. 
v.  Heist,  5  W.  &  S.  171:  1233. 
v.  Keffer,  1  Brunner,  Col.  Cas. 

.  614. 
v.  People,  23  Colo.  300:  530. 
v.  Samuels,  17  Iowa,  518:  1229. 
v.  State,  101  Ga.  534:  199,  231, 

336 
v.  Yakima,  7  Wash.  220:  789, 
791. 
New   Orleans    v.    ITolmes,   13  La. 
Ann.  502:  312. 
v.  New  Orleans  Coffee  Co.,  46 

La.  Ann.  86:  100:3. 
v.  Poutz,  14  La.  Ann.  853:  899. 
v.  Salamander  Ins.  Co.,  25  La. 

Ann.  650:  710,  928. 
v.  St.  Romes,  9  La.  Ann.  573: 
644,  1129. 
New    Orleans    Canal,    etc.   Co.    v. 
Templeton,  20  L;l  Ann.  141:  872. 
New  Orleans  City  &  L  R.  Co.  v. 
New  Orleans,  44  La.   Ann.  728: 
1024 
New  Orleans,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hemp- 
hill, 86  Miss.  17:  695,699. 
v.  Municipality,  7  La.  Ann.  148: 
1103. 


Newport  v.  Horton  (R,  S.),  50LH 

A.  330:  140. 
New  Portland  v.  New  Vineyard,  16 

Ma  69:  313,  624. 
Newport  Marsh  Trustees,  Ex  parte, 

16  Sim.  346:  1036. 
Newsom  v.  Cocke,  44 Miss.  352:  927. 
v.  Greenwood,  4  Ore.  119:  550, 
1227. 
Newton  v.  Bergbower,  63  III.  App. 
201:  936. 
v.  Cocke,  10  Ark.  169:  869. 
v.  Commissioners,  100  U.  S.  548: 

1194,  1195. 
v.  Cowie,  4  Bing.  234:  1142. 
New  Whatcom  v.  Roeder,  22  Wash. 

570:  1166,  1222. 

New  York  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.  R.  R. 

Co.,  47  Hun,  199:  509,  1023. 

v.  Manhattan    Ry.   Co.,  143  N. 

Y.  1:  241,577,  691,703,707. 

r.  Miln,  11  Pet.  102:  63L 

New  York  &  B.  Bridge,  Matter  of, 

72  N.  Y.  527:  731. 
New   York  Board  of  Fire  Under- 
writers v.  Whipple,  2  App.  Div. 
361:  263. 
New  York  Cent.  etc.  R.  R,  Co.,  Mat- 
ter of,  CO  N.  Y.  112:  1018. 
New  York  Elevated  R,  R.  Co.,  Mat- 
ter of.  70  N.  Y.  327:  608. 
New  York,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bridge- 
port Traction  Co.,  65  Conn. 
410,  527. 
v.  Montclair,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  591: 

214,  244. 
v.  Van  Horn,  57  N.  Y.  473:  443, 
550,  1219.  1220. 
New  York  Institution,  Matter  of, 

131  N.  Y.  2:34:  518. 
New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.   v.  Cuya- 
hoga Co.  Com'rs.,  106  Fed. 
133:  1171. 
v.  Cuyahoga  Co.  Com*rs,  99  Fed. 
846:  1170. 


TABLE   OF    OASES    CITED. 


clxi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


New  York  &  L.  L  Bridge  Co.,  Mat- 
ter of,  54  Hun,  400:  851. 
New  York  &  Long  Island  Bridge 
Co.,  Matter  of,  148  N.  Y.  540:  131, 
135,  231,  579. 
New  York  Prot   E.  Pub.  School, 
'  Matter  of,  47  N.  Y.  556:  1132. 
New  York,  The,  108  Fed.  102:  509, 

650. 
Niagara  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cornell, 

110  Fed.  816:  11. 
Niantic  Sav.  Bank  v.  Douglas,  5  111. 

App.  579:  1047. 
Niblack  v.  Goodman,  67  Ind.  174: 

435,  562. 
Nichol  v.  Nashville,  9  Humph.  252: 
1009,  1033. 
v.   U.   S.   etc.  Agency,  74  Mo. 
457:  635. 
Nicholas  v.  Phelps,  15  Pa.  St.  36: 

914. 
Nicholl  v.  Allen,  1  B.  &  S.  934:  640. 
Nichols  v.    Bertram,   3  Pick.   342: 
1193. 
v.  Burlington,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  78 

Minn.  43:  23. 
v.  Cass,  65  N.  H  212:  1123, 1218, 

1289. 
v.  Levy,  5  Wall.  433:  616. 
v.  Norfolk,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  120 

N.  C.  495:  1283,  1284. 
v.  Squire,  5  Pick.  168:  481. 
v.  State,  127  Ind.  406:  815,  825. 
v.  State,  32  Tex.  Crim.  391:  240. 
v.   Walter,  37  Minn.  264:  369, 

386. 
v.  Wells,  Sneed  (Ky.),  255:  709. 
Nicholson  v.  Fields,  7  H  &  N.  817: 
961. 
v.  Fields,  31  L  J.  Ex.  235:  960. 
v.  Thompson,  5  Rob.  (La.)  367: 
1158. 
Nickey  v.  Stearus  Ranches  Co.,  126 
CaL  150:  468. 


Nicol  v.  Paul,  L.  R.  1  Scotch  App. 

131:  892. 
Niemeyer  v.  Wright,  75  Va.  239: 

938. 
Niles  v.  Ransford,  1  Mich.  338:  1047. 

v.  Steere,  102  Mich.  328:  239. 
Nixon  v.  Piffet,  16  La.   Ann.  379: 

466,  511,  636. 
Noble  v.  State,   1  Greene  (Iowa), 

325:  848,  853. 
Nobles  v.  Georgia,  168  U.  S.  398: 
614. 
v.  State,  38  Tex.  Crim.  App.  330: 
440. 
Noecker  v.  Noecker,  66  Kan.  347: 

707. 
Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37:  643. 
v.  Fisher,  3  Call,  215:  1105. 
v.  People,  187  III  587:  157. 
Nolan  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.  R  R.  Co., 

91  Wis.  16:  650,  75S,  775. 
Nolen  v.  Harden,  43  Ark.  307:  677. 
Noll  v.  Morgan,  82  Mo.  App.  112: 

1010. 
Noonan  v.  Del.  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  68 

Fed.  1:613. 
Norfolk  v.  Chamberlaine,  29Gratt. 

534:  643. 
Norfolk,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Old  Do- 
minion Baggage  Co.,  99  Va. 
Ill:  784. 
v.  Prindle,  82  Va.  122:  757, 1296. 
Norfor  v.  Busby,  19  Wash.  450:  510. 
Norman  v.  Heist,  5  W.  &  S.  171: 
1217. 
v.  Ky.  Board  of  Managers,  93 
Ky.  537:  66,83,92,93. 
Norris  v.  Crocker,  13  How.  429:  20, 
481,  483. 
v.  Hall,  124  Mich.   170:    1159, 

1166. 
v.  Harris,  15Cal.  226:  610,  612. 
v.  Hundred  of  Gawtry,  Hob. 
139:  329. 


olxii 


I      OF     CAM  S     t'l  II    D. 


VoL  i,  pp.  i  808;  Vol.  n,  pp 


v  Trip]'.  Ill  Iowa,  L15:  1-17, 
1284,  L286. 
v.  Trust*  ss,  eta,  7  G.  &  J.  7: 

119a 

v.  Wrenschall,84  Md.492:  119a 
stown  v.  Nbrristown  Pass.  Ry. 
:  18  Pa,  si.  87:  840. 
North   Am.  Trading  &    Trans.   Co. 

\.  Smith,  93  Fed.  7:   170. 
North  Bridgewater  Hank  v.  Cope- 
land,  7  Allen,  189:  641. 
North  British,  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Craig, 

lOOTenn.  681:  711. 
North  Canal  St  Road  Case,  10  Watts, 

851:  478,  553,  1169. 
North    Chicago   Hebrew   Cong.    v. 

Garibaldi,  70  111.  App.  38:   1003. 
North  Chicago  R  11  Co.  v.  Morris- 

.  Ill  111.  646:   12 
Northontt  v.  Eager,  132  .Mo.    265: 

781,  785. 
Northern  Cent.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Mary- 
land, 187  U.  S.  258:   1195,  1196. 
Northern  Counties  Trust  v.  Sears, 

30  Ore.  388:  200,  417. 
Northern  Pac.  Ex.  Co.  v.  Metschan, 

90  Fed.  80:  824,235,  256. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Barnes, 
2  N.  D.  310:  340.  353,  356. 
v.  So  lerberg,  188  U.  S.  526:  1026. 
Northern  R.  R  Co.  v.  Manchester, 

etc,  R  R.  Co..  66  N.  H.  560:  158. 
Northern  Trust  Co.  v.  Palmer,  171 

111.  383:  846,  1076. 
North  Hempstead  v.  Hempstead,  2 

Wend.  109:  939. 
North   Milwaukee,  In  re,  93  Wis. 

616:  6,  7.  155. 
North  River  Boom  Co.  v.  Smith,  15 

Wash.  138:  306. 
Northrop,  Ex   parte,  41    Ore.    489: 

419. 
Northrop  v.  Cooper,  23  Kan.  432: 


Northrup  v.  Boyt,  81  Ore.  524:  185, 
584,  1261. 
v.  Maneka,  126  Mich.  550:  10. 
North  Springs  Water  Co.  v.  Tacoma, 

21  Wash.  517:  1024 
North  Towanda  v.  Bradford  Co.,  3 

Pa  Dist.  Ct.  517:  491,  528. 
Northwestern,  etc.  Bank  v.  State, 

18  Wash.  73:  1240. 
Northwestern  Masonic  Aid  Ass'n 

v.  Waddell,  138  Mo.  628:  415. 
Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wayne 

Circ.  Judge.  58  Midi.  381:  293. 
Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wayne 

Circ.  Judge,  58  Mich.  381:  293. 
Northwestern    M.   L.    Ins.   Co.    v. 

Lewis  A:  ( ilark  Co.,  28  Mont.  484: 

510,  579. 
Northwestern  Nat.  Bank  v.  Super- 
ior. 103  Wis.  43:  13,  132. 
Northwestern  Tel.  Ex.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.  Co.,  76  Minn.  334: 
774. 
v.   Minneapolis,  81  Minn.  140: 
774,  884. 
Norton  Matter  of,  39  App.  Div.  369: 

758,  792. 
Norton  v.  Shelby  Co.,  118  U.  S.  425: 

177. 
Norton  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Snow,  45  Kan. 

332:  252. 
Norwegian  Street,  81  Pa.  St.  349: 

1139,     1140. 
Norwich  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Norwich 

City'Gas  to.,  25  Conn.  18:  1023, 

1024. 
Notley  v.  Buck,  8  B.  &  C.  164:  699, 

701. 
Nottage  v.  Portland,  35  Ore.  539: 

200,  208,  290,  1230,  1232,  1237. 
Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich.  274:  1159, 

1 1 06. 
Noyes  v.  Marston,  70  N.  H.  7:  689, 

779. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Noyes  v.  Southworth,  55  Mich.  173: 

1297. 
Nudgett  v.  Liebes,  14  Wash.  482: 

442. 
Nugent  v.  Jackson,  72  Miss.  1040: 

124,  955. 
Nunes  v.  Wellisch,  12  Bush.  363: 

788. 
Nunn  v.    Citizens'  Bank,  107  Ky. 
262:  288. 
v.    Fabian,    L.    R.    1    Ch.   35: 
1101. 
Nunnally  v.   White,   3  Met.  (Ky.) 

584:  924. 
Nusser  v.  Commonwealth,   25  Pa. 

St.  126:  483,  486,  531,  534. 
Nuth  v.  Tamplin,  LR8Q.B.  Div. 

253:  663,  705,  708. 
Nutter  v.  Accrington  Local  B.  S., 

L.  R.  4  Q.  B.D.  375:  686. 
Nymph,  The  Schooner,  1  Sumn.  516: 

982. 
Nystrom  v.  London,  etc.  Mortg.  Co., 

47  Minn.  31:  1258. 

o. 

Oakland  Tp.  v.  Martin,  104  Pa.  St. 

303:  932. 
Oates  v.  National  Bank,  100  U.  S. 

239:  729,  929. 
Oath  Before  Justices,  Matter  of,  12 

Coke,  130:945. 
Oatman  v.  Bond,  15  Wis.  20:  1206. 
O'Brian  v.  County  Com'rs,  51  Md. 

15:  1230,  1233. 
O'Brien  v.  Ash,  169  Mo.  283:  286, 
1159. 
v.  Baltimore  Co.  Com'rs,  51  Md. 

15:  1237. 
v.  Dillon,  9  Ir.  C.  L.  (N.  S.)  318: 

938. 
v.  Moss,  131  Ind.  99:  1076,  1240. 
-v.  State,  109  Ga.  51:  341. 


O'Brien  v.  St.  Croix  B.  Co.,  75  Minn. 
343:  302. 
v.  Young,  95  N.  Y.  428:  1211. 
O'Byrnes  v.  State,  51  Ala.  25:  781, 

929,  930. 
Oconee  E.   L.  &  P.  Co.  v.  Carter, 

lllGa.  106:  1041. 
O'Connell  v.  Menominee  Bay  Shore 

Lumber  Co.,  113  Mich.  124:  415. 
O'Connor,  In  re,  81  &  L  465: 784. 
O'Connor  v.  Com'rs,  61  Minn.  370: 
464. 
v.  Fond  du  Lac,  109  Wis.  253: 

317,  319,  327. 
v.  Towns,  1  Tex.  107:  330. 
v.  Warner,  4  W.  &  S.  227:  19. 
Odell  v.  DeWitt,  53  N.  Y.  643:  944. 
O'Donnell    v.    Mclntyre,   37  Hun, 
615:  1141. 
v.  Sweeney,  5  Ala.  467:  938. 
Oellers  v.  Hoon,  3  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  537: 

1001. 
O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  400: 

29,  609. 
Off  v.  Trapp,  109  111.  App.  49:  758. 
Offield  v.  Davis,  100  Va.  250:  707, 

847,  921,  935. 
O'Flaherty  v.   McDowell.  6   H.  L. 

Cas.  142:  463,  490,  636,  637,  6G9. 
Ogbourne  v.  Ogbourne's  Adm'r,  60 

Ala.  616:  517. 
Ogden    v.    Blackledge,   2   Cranch, 
272:  19,  21,  459, 635, 640, 683. 
v.  Folliott,  3  T.  R.  733:  25. 
v.  Saunders,    12    Wheat.    213: 
576,   928,   1174,   1190,  1192, 
1197,  1210,  1211. 
v.  Strong,   2    Paine,   584:    649, 

659,  693,  695,  701,  709. 
v.  Witherspoon,    2    Haywood, 
404:  460. 
Ogden  City  v.  Boreman,  20  Utah, 
98:  859. 
v.  Hamer,  12  Utah,  337:  529. 


TABLE   OF   OASES   CITED. 


iviuvs  are  i"  the  pace*:  Vo1-  I.  PP-  1-W3;  Vol.  II,  pp.  60.visi5. 


O'Hanlon  v,  Myers.  10  Rioh.Lv  188: 

O'Hara  v.  State,  181  Ala.  28:  96. 
O'Hare  ^.National  Hank,  77  Pa.  St. 

BO: 
Ohio.  etc.   R.  R.  Ca  v.  McClelland, 

111.  110:  1194 
Ohio    Life    ln&    etc.   Co.   v.  Mer- 
ints1  Ina  etc.  Co..  11  Hum  ph. 
1:   1 
Ohio  Lite  Ins.  &  Tr.  Co.  v.  Debolt, 

10  How.  41G:  000,1022. 

Ohio.  Steamboat,  v.  Stunt,  10  Ohio 

1020. 

ine  v.  state.  69  Ind.  183:  291. 

Olcott  v.  Frazier,  5  Hill.  562:  1140. 

Oldham    v.    Mayor,    102   Ala.    357: 

-170. 
Old  Town  P.  ink  v.  McCormick,  06 

:  39. 
O'Leary    v.    Cook   Ca,  23  111.  531: 
2m. 
v.  Frisbey,    17    111.    App.    553: 
1275. 
Oleson  v.  Railway  Co.,  36  Wis.  383: 
117,  519. 
%-.  Wilson,   20  Mont    544:  785, 
786. 
Olin  v.  Denver  &  R  G.  R,  R.  Co., 
25  Colo.  177:  683,  785. 
v.  Fox.  79  Minn.  459:  1258. 
v.  Meyers,  55  Iowa,  209:  1139. 
Olive  v.  Walton,  33  Miss.  114:  662, 

722, 1062. 
Olive  Cem.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  93 

Pa.  St  129:  710. 

Oliver,  In  re,  17  Wis.  681:  148,  1G7. 

Oliver  v.  Lewis,  9  Wash.  572:  1220. 

v.  Morton    Co.,   117   Iowa,  43: 

1167,  1227. 

Olmstead,  Mutter  of,  17  Abb.  N.  C. 

689. 
Onv  .''P.    Ky.   Co.,  73  Fed. 

1013 


Omaha  Real  Est.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Krags- 

cow.  17  Xeb.  592:  462,514. 
Omaha  &  R.  V.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hale,  45 

Neb.  418:  986. 
O'Mahoney  v.  Bullock,  97  Ky.  774: 

340,  468. 
O'Mara  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  150  Ind. 

648:  241,  432. 
O'Meara  v.  Coin'rs,  3  T.  &  C.  236: 

202. 
Omit  v.  Commonwealth,  21  Pa.  St. 

426:  528. 
O'Neil     v.    Tyler,    3     N.     D.     47: 

1140. 
O'Neill  v.   Am.  Fire  Ins.    Co.,  166 

Pa  St.  72:   154 
Ong   v.  Sumner,  1  Cinn.  Supr.  Ct 

421:  505. 
Openheiui  v.   Wolf,  3  Sandf.  <  -u 

571:  879. 
Opening  House  Ave.,  Matter  of,  67 

Barb.  350:  1057. 
Opinion  of  Judges.  6  Sheplj . 

123. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  7  Mass. 

710,  752,  914  958. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  22  Pick.  573: 

927. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  13  Gray,  6ls: 

1188. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  117  Mass.  603: 

1194 
Opinion  of  Justices,  126  Mass.  551: 

886,  888. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  136  Mass.  57S: 

910,  1312. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  160  Mass.  580: 

Kir,,  174. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  35  N.  H  579:  72, 

6  ',  84  87. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  41  N.  H.  555: 

58  I.  939. 
Opinion  of  Justices,  45  N.  H.  007: 
110,  837. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Opinion  of  Justices,  52  N.  H.  622:  72, 

82,  84,  87. 
Opinion  to  Governor,  24  R  I.  603: 

417. 

Orange  Co.  v.  Harris,  97  CaL  600: 

458,  577,  592. 
Orange  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Alexandria, 

17  Gratt.  176:  664,  710,  723. 

Ordenstein  v.  Bones,  2  Ariz.  229, 

1261. 

Ordway  v.  Central  National  Bank 

of  Baltimore.  47  Md.  217:  990. 

O'Rear  r.  Crum,  135  111.  294:  1155. 

v.  Jackson,  124  Ala.  298:  438. 

Oregon  City  v.  Moore,  30  Ore.  215: 

429. 

Oregon  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  67  Fed.  650:  649. 

Oregon,  etc.  Co.  In  re,3  Sawyer,  614: 

457. 

Oregon  Ry.  Co.  v  Portland,  9  Ore. 

231:  1044. 

Oregon  Short  Line  v.  Standing,  10 

Utah,  452:  501 

O'Reilly  v.  Bard,  105  Pa.  St.  569: 

1019. 

v.  Utah,  etc.  Stage  Co.,  87  Hun, 

406:  1159. 

Oriental  Bank  v.  Freeze,  18  Me.  109: 

18,  545. 

v.  Wright,  L.  R  5  App.  Cas.  842: 

998. 

Ornamental     Woodwork     Co.     v. 

Brown,  2  H.  &  C.  63:  702,  705. 

O'Ronrke  v.  O'Rourke,  43  Mich.  58: 

611. 

Orr  v.  Bailey,  59  Neb.   128:    1145, 

1290. 

v.  Baker,  4  Ind.  86:  1002. 

v.  Rhine,  45  Tex.  343:  633, 1160. 

Orvil  v.  Woodcliff,  61  N.  J.  L.  107: 

735,  797. 

v.  Woodcliff,  64  N.  J.  L.  286: 

694,  096,  697,  735. 


Orvis  v.  Board  of  Park  Com'rs,  88 

Iowa,  674:  1029. 
Osborn,  Ex  parte,  24  Ark.  479:  462, 

483. 
Osborn  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  9  Wheat 
738:  1194: 
v.  Blackburne,  78  Wis.  209:  623. 
v.  Charelvoix  Circuit  Judge,  114 
Mich.  655:  135, 295,  323,  707. 
v.  Nicholson,  13  Wall.  654:  1206L 
Osborne,  Ex  parte,  24  Ark.  479:  567. 
Osborne  v.  Huger,  1  Bay.  176:  321, 
640. 
v.  Lindstrom,  9  N.  D.  1:  1283, 
1286,  1287. 
Osburn  v.  Staley,  5  W.  Va.  86:  73, 

74,  78,  91,  9a 
Osburne  v.    Blackburne,    78  Wis. 

209:  22. 
Oshe  v.  State,  37  Ohio  St.  500:  188. 
Oshkosh  Water  Works  Co.  v.  Osh- 
kosh,  187  U.  S.  437:  1201. 
v.  Oshkosh,  109  Wis.  ':03:  1201. 
Oster  v.  Rabeneau,  46  Mo.  595: 1255. 
Oswego  Bridge  Co.  v.  Fish,  1  Barb. 

Ch.  547:  548. 
Otero  Canal  Co  v.  Fosdick,  20  Cola 

522:  1139. 
Otis  v.  People,  196  111.  542:  235, 240. 
Ott  v.    Lowery,  78  Miss.  487:  694, 
711,  725,  733. 
v.  Soulard,  9  Mo.  581:  606,  86a 
v.  Young,  78  Miss.  487:  730. 
Ottman   v.  Hoffman,  7  Misc.  714: 

321,  322,  562,  607. 
Otto  Gas  Eng.  Works  v.  Hare,  64 

Kan.  78:  191,  299. 
Otto  Tp.  Road,  181  Pa.  St.  390:  303. 
Otto  Tp.  Road,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  20: 

303. 
Overfield    v.    Sutton,   1  Met.  (Ky.) 

621,778. 
Overmyer  v.  Williams,  15  Ohio,  31, 
1035. 


i'lw  i 


T  \r.i  S   OF   i  A.8ES    01  rED. 


Tiu-  references  sre  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  l-Go:?;  Vol.  ir,  pp.  60S  1815. 


Overseers  v.   Overseers,    L8  John. 
107,  94ft 
v.  Overseers,  20  John.  1:  984 

v.  Smith.  3 a  &  K.  8C3:  981. 
Owen   v.   Baer,   154   Mo.  484:  360, 
876, 
v.  Boyle   13  Me.  147:  618,  619, 

63a 

v  Sioux    City,   91    Iowa,    190: 
385. 

v.  Slatter,  26  Ala.  551:  329. 
Owen  i'".  Com'rs  v.  Spangler,  159 

Ind.  575:  406. 
Owens  v.  Owens.  100  N.  C.  240:  7  12. 

v.  Witheo,  3  Tex.  61:  1247. 
Owensboro&  X.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Todd, 

91  Ky.  175:   157. 
Owings  v.  Hull.  9  Pet.  607:  40,  613, 

866. 
Oxford  Poor  Rate.  8  E.  &  B.   18  k 

B67. 
Oxley  v.  Bridge,  1  Doug.  67:  330. 


Pacific  v.  Seifert,  79  Mo.  210:  124. 
Pacific,  etc.  Co.  v.  Jolitfe,  2  Wall. 

450:  20. 
Pacific,  etc.  Tel.   Co.   v.  Common- 
wealth. 66  Pa.  St.  70:  558. 
Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Cornell,  59 

Neb.  364:  451. 
Pacific  Mail  S.  S.  Co.   v.  Jolliffe,  2 

Wall.  450:  521,  517. 
Pacific    Postal    Tel.    Cable   Co.    v. 

Dalton.  119  Cal.  601:  423. 
Pacific  R,  R.  Co.  v.  Cass  County,  53 
Mo.  17:   .-..'7. 
v.  The   Governor,   23   Mo 
117. 
Pack  v.  Barton,  47  Mich.  520:  85, 

112,  11;. 
Packard    v.    Richardson,    17   I 

143: 


Packer  v.  Noble.  103  Pa.  St.  188: 
730. 
v.  Sunbury,  etc.  R.   R.   Co.,  19 
Pa.  St.  211:  668. 
Packet  Co  v.  Keokuk,  95  U.  S.  80: 

581,  585. 
Paddock  v.  Cameron,  8  Cow  212: 
910. 
v.  Mo.   Pac.   Ry.  Co.,   155   Mo. 
524:  857. 
Padelford   v.   Mayor,   14  Ga.   438: 

631. 
Padgett  v.Post,  106  Fed.  600:  1199. 
Paducah  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Stovall. 

12Heisk.  1:  357. 
Page  v.  Allen,  57  Pa.  St.  338:  923. 
v.  Suspender  Co.,  191  Pa.  St. 

511:  303. 
v.  Utah  Com.,  11  Utah,  119:  731, 

890. 
v.  Weymouth,  47  Me.  238:  328. 
Paget  v.  Curtis,  15  La.  Ann.  451: 

611. 
Paino  v.  Ins.  Co.,  11  R.  I.  411:  866. 
v.  Spratley,  5  Kan.  525:  1033, 
1015,1046. 
Palmer,  Matter  of,  40  N.  Y.  561: 

550. 
Palmer  v.  Aldridge,  16  Barb.  131: 
869. 
v.    Conly,    4   Denio,   374:    556, 

1227. 
v.  Cross,  1  S.  &  M.  48:  1168. 
v.  Danville,  166  111.42:  443. 
v.  Hickory  Grove  Cem.  Co.,  S4 

Aiil  Div.  600:  1021. 
v.  Hicks,  6  John.  133:  1039. 
v.  Laberee,  23  Wash.  409:  1213. 
v.  Lacock,  107  Pa.  St.  346:  940. 
v.  M< -Master,  8  Mont  186:  1053, 

1060. 
v.  Palmer,  36  Mich.  487:  1016. 
v.  State,  7  Cold.  82:  747. 
v.  State,  88  Tenn.  553:  1002. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


clxvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Palmer  v.  York  Bank,  18  Me.  166: 
646,  986. 
v.  Zumbrota,  72  Minn.  266:  72, 
131,  261,  846. 
Palms  v.  Shawano  Co.,  61  Wis.  211: 

693,  797. 
Palo  Alto  Road,  1G0  Pa.  St.   104: 

502. 
Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  529:  519. 
Panaud  v.  Jones,  1  Cal.  488:   899. 
Pancoast  v.  Addison,  1E&  J,  350: 
1279. 
t.  Ruffin,  1  Ohio,  177:  1076. 
Pangborn    v.   Westlake,    36  Iowa, 
546:  939. 
v.  Young,  32  N.  J.  L.  29:  59,  61, 
608,  609,  867. 
Panter     v.     Attorney-General,     6 

Brown,  N.  C.  486:  311,312. 
Papin  v.  Ryan,  32  Mo.  21:  606. 
Pap  worth  v.  State,  103  Ga.  36:  341, 

591. 
Paqueta  Habana.  The,  175  U.  S.  677: 

519,  522. 
Parfitt  v.  Ferguson,  3  App.  Div.  176: 

234,  243.  582. 
Park  v.  Candler,  113  Ga.  647:  135. 
v.  Candler,  114  Ga.  466:  954. 
v.  Modern   Woodmen,  181    111. 
214:  191,  290,  1230. 
Park   Bank   v.   Remsen,  158  U.  S. 

337:  791. 
Parker,   Ex  parte,   35  Tex.   Crim. 

Rep.  12:  1303. 
Parker  v.   Bogardus,  5  N.  Y.  309: 
1168. 
v.  Commonwealth,    6    Pa.    St. 

507:  145,  172. 
v.  Elmira,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  165  N. 

Y.  274:  259,  528,  537. 
v.  Fassit,  1  Har.  &  J.  337:  1278. 
v.  Great  W.  Ry.  Co.,  7  M.  &  Gr. 

253:  1022. 
v.  Hubbard,  64  Ala.  203:  462. 


Parker   v.  Parker,  102   Iowa,  500: 
980. 
v.  Pomeroy,  2  Wis.  112:  90^. 
v.  Powell,  132  Ind.  419:  136. 
v.  State,  133  Ind.  178:  133. 
v.  Taswell,  2  DeG/&  J.  559:  777. 
Parkhurst  v.  Capital  City  Ry.  Co., 

23  Ore.  471:  1023,  1024. 
Parkinson      v.     Brandenburg,     35 
Minn.  294:  319,  321. 
v.  State,  14  Md.  1S4:   1S5,  190, 
203,  204,  219,  308,  312,  660, 
703,  747,  753. 
Parkland  v.  Gaines,  88  Ey.  562:  268. 
Parks  v.   Soldiers,  etc.  Home,   22 
Colo.  86:  924. 
v.  State,  110  Ga.  760:  176,  306. 
v.  State,  159  Ind.  211:  205,  300, 
427. 
Parlin   Orendorf  Co.    v.   Hord,   78 

Mo.  App.  279:  436.  439. 
Parmelee  v.  Lawrence,  48  111-  331. 

550. 
Parmenter  v.  New  York,  135  N.  Y. 

154:  1283,  1287. 
Parramore  v.  Taylor,  11  Gratt.  220: 

778.  784. 
Parroti  v.  Stevens,  37  Conn.  93:  479. 
Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  433:  754. 
v.  Circuit  Judge,  37  Mich.  287: 

695. 
v.  Durham,  70  N.  H.  44:  781. 
v.  McCracken,    9    Leigh,    495: 

12S2. 
v.  McGavock,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  581: 

1102. 
v.  Paine,  26  Ark.  124:  642. 
v.  Thompson,  1  H.  Bl.  322:  1105. 
v.  Tuolumne  Co.  W.  Co.,  5  Cal. 
43:  1053. 
Partington,  Ex  parte,  6  Q.  B.  649: 

673,  811. 
1'art'ngton     v.    Attorney-General, 
L.  R.  4  H.  L.  122:  961,  999. 


TABLE    OF    OA8]  9    I'll  I  0. 


i  ar<-  to  the  pagea;  Vol  i,  pp.  I  808;  VoL  n,  pp  005-1815. 


m  v.  Bervey,  i  Gray,  110 
Partridge  v.  Badger,  80  Barb  148: 

v.  l'  irsey,  3  Bar,  &  J.  807:  837. 
v.  Ins.  Co.,  15  Wall.  578:  013. 
v.  N  lylor,  Cm  Eliz.480:  970. 

3trange,  I  Plow.  79:  311. 
oa   v.  Stimson,  91  Cal.  888: 
841,  872,  390. 

sower  Assessment.  In  re, 
:>1  N.  J.  L.  156:  871,  879,  380.  391. 
Patapsoo  Qaano  Co.  v.  North  Caro- 
lina, 171  U.  S.  315:   185. 
Patchin  v.  Brooklyn,  2  Wend  377: 

948. 
Paterson  v.  Society,  24  N.  J.  L.  885: 

17-:. 

P.ittee  v.  Greely,  13  Met,  284:  93a 
Patten  v.  Rhymer,  3  E.  &  E.  1:  '.'1  I. 

v.  Smith,  4  Conn.  450:  1099. 
Patterson   v.  Bark  Eudora,  190  U. 
S.  169:  651. 
v.  Brindie,  9  Watts, 98:  109G. 
v.  Caldwell,   1  Met.  (Ky.)  489: 

4G0. 
v.  I  ommonwealth,  99  Ky.  610: 

517,  519. 
v.  McClausland,  3  Bland's  Ch. 

71:  878L 
v.  Tatum,3Sawj\  164:  522,  922. 
v.  Winn,  5  Pet.  233:  29. 
Pattison  v.  Bankes,  2  Cuwper,  543: 

Patty  v.  Colgan,  97CaL  251:  130. 
Paul,  In  re,  94  N.  Y.  497:  202,  245, 

Paul  v.  Stone,  112  Mas*.  27:  333. 
Paulk   v.   Sycamore,    104  Ga.   728: 
1031. 

Oh   v.    Guerrard,   67   Ga.  319: 

•.   '.  Dana;  31  Tex  07:  011. 
I'av.-y    v.    Utter,   132  111.   189:  462, 
500. 


Pawlet   v.   Clark,   9  Cranch,   298: 

11112. 

Paxton  &  Hershey  Irr.  C.  &  L.  Co. 

v.  Farmers'  &  M.  Irr.  &  L.  Co.,  45 

Neb.  884:  281,  711,  798. 

Payne  v.  Conner,  3  Bibb.   180:    100. 

v.  School  District,  168  Pa.  St. 

386:  277. 
v.  Thompson,  44  Ohio  St.  192: 

1290. 
v.  Tread  well,  16  Cal.  220:  868, 
872, 
Peablesv.  Hannaford,  18  Mo.  106: 

330. 
Peabody  v.  School  Com.,  115  Mass. 

383:  1029. 
Peachee  v.  State,  63  Ind.  399:  205 
Peacock   v.   Bawks,   Minor   (Ala.), 
387:  012. 
v.  Pratt,  121  Fed.  772:  430. 
v.  Regina,  93  E.  C.  L.  R,  202: 
3  35,  336. 
Peake  v.  Yeldell,  17  Ala.  630:  621, 
Pearce  v.  Atwood.  13  Mass.  324 :  35 1. 
v.  Bank  of  Mobile,  33  Ala.  693: 

671,  673. 
v.  Lang6t,  101  Pa.  St.  507:  S79. 
v.  Mason,  99  Ky.  357:  340,  540. 
v.  Vittum,  193  111.  192:  574 
Pearl  v.  Conley,  7  Sm.  &  M.  358: 

1015. 
Pearpont  v.  Graham,  4  Wash.  C.  C. 

232:  32a 
Pearsall   v.  Supervisors,  71   Mich. 

433:  1139. 
Pearson  v.  Darrington,  32  Ala.  227: 
908. 
v.  Flanagan,  52  Tex.  266:  1131. 
v.  International   Distillery,  72 

Iowa,  348:  459. 
v.  Lovejoy,  53  Barb.  407:  614, 

1305. 
v.  Stevens,  56  Ohio  St.  126:  354, 
407. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


clxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Pease    v.  Howard,   14    John.   479: 
1018. 
v.  L.  Fish.  Furn.  Co.,  176  111. 

220:  741,  793. 
v.  L.  Fish  F.  Co.,  70  III  App. 

138:  741,  79a 
v.  Peck,  18  How.  595:  124,  893, 
895. 
.  v.  Ryan,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  44:  467. 
Peate  v.  Dicken,  1  C.  M.  &  R.  422: 

817. 
Peavy  v.  Goss,  90  Tex.  89:  292. 
Peck  v.  Pease,  5  McLean,  486:  621. 
v.  Weddell,  IT  Ohio  St.  271:  797. 
Pecot  v.  Police  Jury,  41  La.  Ann. 

706:  566,  1161. 
Pecquet  v.  Pecquet,  17  La.  Ann. 

204:  86a 
Peed  v.  McCrary,  94  Ga.  487:  449. 
Peeler  v.  Peeler,  69  Miss.  141:  749, 

761. 
Peet  v.  Nalle,  30  La.  Ann.  949:  668. 
Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  94 

U.  S.  164:  614. 
Peiser  v.  Griflfen,  125  Cal.  9:  1218, 

1288. 
Pelham  v.  Messenger,  16  La.  Ann. 
99:  1014. 
v.  Woolsey,  16  Fed.  418:  219. 
Pell   v.   Newark,   40  N.   J.    L.   71: 
368. 
v.  Ulmar,  18  N.  Y.  139:  1054. 
Pel  lew  v.  Wonsford,  9  Barn.  &  C. 

134:  329. 
Pells,  Ex  parte,  28  Fla.  67:  468. 
Peltier  v.  Bradley, 67  Conn.  42:  557. 
Peluson  v.  Emmerson,  135  I1L  55: 

1283. 
Pemble  v.  Clifford,  2  McCord,  31 : 

610. 
Penberthy  v.  Lee,  51  Wis.  261:  1127. 
-Pendleton  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  2 
J.  J.  Marsh.  148:  1064. 
v.  Perkins,  40  Mo.  565:  1102. 


Penfield,  Matter  of,  3  App.  Div.  30: 

1228. 
Penick  v.  High  Shoals  Mfg.    Co., 

113  Ga  592:  674. 
Peninsular  Lead  &  Color  Works  v. 
Union  Oil,  etc.  Co.,  100  Wis.  488: 
1208. 
Penniev.  State,  80  Cal.  266:  300,  462. 
Penniman  v.  Cole,  8  Met.  496:  336. 
Pennington  v.  Coxe,  2  Cranch,  33: 
659. 
v.  Gibson,  16  How.  65:  41,  613, 

865,  866. 
v.  Hare,  60  Minn.  146:  1290. 
v.  Townsend,  7  Wend.  276:  938. 
v.  Woolfolk,  79  Ky.  13:  188,  227, 
250. 
Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.  1:  930. 
Pennoyer  v.  McConnaugby,  140  U. 

S.  1:887,890,  1198. 
Pennsylvania  v.  Baltimore,  1  Ves. 

Sr.  454:  627. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Frana,  13  111. 
App.  91:  879. 
v.  State,  142  Ind.  428:  140,  141, 
339,  916. 
Pennsylvania  Hall,  In  re,  5  Pa.  St. 

204:  553. 
Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Burling- 
ton, 58  N.  J.  Eq.  547:  391, 
397,  1236. 
v.  Butler,  57  Pa.  St.  335:  1292. 
v.  Canal  Com'rs,  21  Pa.  St.  9: 

548,  1035. 
v.  Keller,  67  Pa.  St.  300:  1292. 
v.  State,  142  Ind.  42S:  413. 
Penny  wit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  600: 

37. 
Penobscot  Lumbering  Ass'n,  In  re, 

93  Me.  391:713,721,734. 
Penobscot  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett.  12 

Gray,  244:  620,  622. 
Penrose  v.  Martyr,  E.  B.  &  E.  499: 
1245. 


I    VSES    I 


808;  VoL  II.  pp.  ■ 


I'.  R. 
.  21  I'l.i.  192:  10m 
la  187:  n  10. 
Pens  '.cola  Tel.  ( 'o.  v.  Western  U.  T. 

lounty  Com'rs,  28  Mont. 

Cases,  138  Fed.  671:  967. 

.  Abraham,  16  App  Div. 
981. 
•    Adiri  in  ,57  Barb.  656: 

1141 
v.  Allen,  1  Lana  OH:  633. 
v.    Allen,    00    Misc.    100:     979. 

1397. 
v.  Allen,  -10  X.  Y.  404:  1- 
v.  Allen,  6  Wend.  486:  471,  627, 

1117,  HIS 
v.  Am.-.  07  Colo.  133:  517. 
v.   Arensberg,    105  X.    Y.    133: 

v.   Atchison,  etc.  Ry.  (  • 

111. 
v.   Backus.   11   App.    Div.    147: 

v.   Banks,  67   X.    Y.    DCS:    00S, 

454. 
v.  Harry.  93  Mich.  540:  331. 
v.  Bartleson.  14  Utah,  25 

iellett,  99   Mich.    151:    3G4, 

419. 
rberrich,  11  How.  Pr.  333: 

071. 
v.  Bigler,  5  Cal.  23:  935. 
v.  Blue  Mt.  Joe,  10;)  111.   370: 

191,  030. 
v.  Board  of  Education,  1C6  III. 

517,  519. 
v.    Board   of  Equalization,   00 

Colo.  000:  415. 
v.  I:-  ml  of  State  Auditors,  9 

Mich.  327:  1194. 
v.    Board   of  Suprs.,   56   Barb. 
1 150. 


le  v.  i:.>ar. I  of  Trustees,  71  l  tun, 

188:   1150.  1150. 
v.  Bond.  10  Cal.  563:   1199. 
v.  Bowen,  ::<>  Barb.  24:'840. 
\.   Bowen,  01   N.   V.  520:    102, 

103,  340. 
v.  Brady,  49  App.  Div.  238:  583. 
v.  Bray,  105  Cal.  844:  744. 
v.  Bremer,  G9  App.  Div.  11:  577, 

928,  1070. 
v.  Bridges,  142  III.  30:  811. 
v.  Briggs,  17  Him.  366:  700. 
v.  Briggs,  50  X.  V,  553:  84,  201, 

003.  007.  051,  001.  0G5,  266, 

581,  936,  911. 
v.   Brislin,  80  III.  403:  005,  201, 

358,  07G. 
v.  Br. .a.: way  Ry.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 

29:   1033. 
v.  Brooklyn,  69  X.  Y.  005:  51ft 
v.  Brooks,  101  Mich.  9S:  205. 
v.  Brown,  189  111.  619:  527. 
v.  Bull.  46  X.  Y.  OS:  937. 
\.  Burch,  si  Mich.  408:  70,  75, 

80,  84,  85,  •  87. 
v.  Burns,  5  Mich.  114:   167,  171, 

659,  731,  914. 
v.  Burridge,  99  Mich.  343:  992. 
v.  Burt,  43  Cal.  560:  53,460,  40-1. 

474,  638. 
v.  Burtleson,  14  Utah,  258:  468.. 
v.  Bussell,  5!)  Mich.  104:  481. 
v.  Butler,  3  Cow.  347:  1185. 
v.  Butler,  16  John.  203:  634 
v.  Butler,  147  X.  Y.  164:  303. 
v.   Butler  St.  Foundry  &  Iron 

Co.,  001  III.   036:    416,  406, 

158,  511,  950. 
v.  Butte,  4  Mont.  174:  164,  170. 
v.  Calder,  30  Midi.  87:  619,600. 
v.  Campbell,  59  Cal.  043:  1184. 
v.  Campbell,  60  Hun,  95:   885. 
v.  Canal  Com'rs.,  3  Scam.  153; 

1070. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxxi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


People  v.  Cannon,  139  N.  Y.  32:  10. 
v.  Canvassers,  77  Hun,  372:  436, 

463. 
v.  Canvassers,    143    N.    Y.   84: 

437. 
v.  Carlock.  198  111.  150:  136. 
v.  Carr,  36  Hun,  488:  518. 
v.  Carson,  10  Misc.  237:  266,528. 
v.  Central  Pacific  R  R  Co.,  43 

Cal.  432:  350. 
v.  Central  Pac.  R    R  Co.,  83 

Cal.  393:  354,  413. 
v.  Central  Pac.  R  R  Co.  105 

Cal.  576:  413. 
v.  Chapin,  105  N.  Y.  309:  945. 
v.  Chase,  165  111.  527:  5,  6,  12. 
v.  Chee  Kee,  61  Cal.  404:  876. 
v.  Chew,  6  Cal.  636:  946. 
v.  Chicago,  152111.  546:  693,  706, 

717,  722,  913,  933. 
v.  Chicago  Theological    Semi- 
nary, 174  111.  177:  1003, 1008, 
1070. 
v.  Cicott,  16  Mich.  283:  899. 
v.  Circuit  Judge,  124  Mich.  664: 

427. 
v.  Clark,  1  Cal.  406:  308,  321. 
v.  Clayton,  4  Utah,  421:  579. 
v.  Cleary,  13  Misc.  546:  518. 
v.  Clute,  50  N.  Y.  451 :  797. 
v.  Cobb,  133  Cal.  74:  300. 
v.  Coleman,  121  N.  Y.  542:  650. 
v.  Coler,  173  N.  Y.  103:  302. 
v.  Collins,  3  Mioh.  343:  145, 166. 
v.  Com'rs,  3  Hill,  601:  663,  70S, 

944. 
v.  Comr's,  47  N.  Y.  501:  221. 
v.  Com'rs,  54  N.  Y.  276:  62,  96, 

101,  123. 
v.  Com'rs,  59  N.  Y.  92:  1195. 
v.  Conrrs  of  Highways,  53  Barb. 

70:  208. 
v.  Com.   Council,  13  App.  Pr. 
(U.  S.)  121:  252. 
] 


People  v.  Common  Council,  22  Barb. 

404:  1137. 
v.  Common    Council,    85    Cal. 

369:  400. 
v.  Common  Council,  140  N.  Y. 

300:  547,  1150,  1151,  1221. 
v.  Comstock,  78  N.  Y.  356:  927. 
v.  Congdon,  77  Mich.  351:  252. 
v.  Cook,  14  Barb.  259:  1117, 1124, 

1139. 
v.  Cook,  96  Mich.  368:  741.  767. 
v.  Cook,  8N.  Y.  67:  1139. 
v.  Cook,  148  U.  S.  397:  614,  119,>. 
v.  Cooper,  6  Hill,  516:  941. 
v.  Cooper,  83  111.  585:  356,  580. 

595,  601. 
v.  Coyle,  55  App.  Div.  223:  1170, 
1225. 

v.  Cray  croft,  111  Cal.  544:  721, 

913. 
v.  Croton  Aqueduct  Board,  26 

Barb.  248:  1305. 
v.  Cummings,  88  Mich.  249:  157. 
v.  Curry.  1^0  Cal.  82:  HI. 
v.  Daiton,  158  N.  Y.  175:,  533. 
v.  Dane,  81  Mich.  36:  1188. 
v.  Daniel],  50  N.  Y.  274:  1051. 
v.  Daniels,  6  Utah,  288:  42. 
v.  Davenport,  91  N.Y.  574:  649, 

651.  723. 
v.  Davis,  78  App.  Div.  570:  455. 
v.  Davis,  Gl  Barb.  456:  345,  562, 

633. 
v.  Dayton,  55  N.  Y.  377:  891. 
v.  Deming,  1  Hilt.  271:  466,  7T8. 
v.  Deuahy,  20  Mich.  349:  192, 

245. 
v.  Dettenthaler,  118  Mich.  595: 

122. 
v.  Devlin,  33  N.  Y.  269:  62,  101. 
v.  De  Wolf,  62  111.  253:  72,  87, 

98,  605,  867. 
v.  District    Ct.,   28    Colo.    161: 
1225. 


TABLE   OF   0A8E8   01  rED. 


are  to  tiu<  pages:  Vol  I.  pp.  i  608;  v.-i.  n,  pp,  bob  1815, 


i  Mioh.  151:  1191. 
r.  Dolan.5  Wyo.  245:  815,  B28, 

v.  D  ''IT-  1 ' i v.  512:  458. 

v.  Draper,   15   X.   Y.  583:   925, 

1051. 
v.  Dunn,  BO  Cal.  811:   85,  157, 

800,  I 
v.  Dunn,  157  X.  T.  528:  404. 
v.  Eddy,  57  Parb.  593:  943,947. 
\.  Edwai  :  .  58  Hun.  877:  52a 
v.  Eichelroth,  7S  Cal  111:  693, 

71ft 
v.  England,  91  I  fun.  152:  358. 
v.  English,  139  III  622:  693,  724, 

ros, 

v.  Fidelity  &  C.  Co.,  153  X.  Y. 

25:  650,  890. 
v.  Fir.-  Ass'n,  93  X.  Yr.  311:  1G9. 
v.  Fishbough,    134   X.   Y.   393: 

v.  Fitch,  147  X.  Y.  355:  302. 

v.  Flagg,  40  X.  Y.  401:  133. 

v.  Fleming,   7   Colo.   230:    185, 

188,  227,  252.  458. 
v.  Freeman,  80  Cal.  233:  7. 
v.  Frisbie,  20  Cal.  135:  643. 
v.  Furman,  85  Mich.  110:  533. 
v.  Gad  way,  61  Mich.   285:  252. 
v.  Gardner,  59  Barb.  198:  1162. 
v.  Gates,  57  Barb.  291:  1141. 
v.  Ganlter,  149  111.39:   133,  692, 
724^738,  7U7. 

ill,  7  Cal.  350:  557.  078.683. 
Gilroy,  82  Hun,  500:  1152. 
v.  (,  03  111.  353:  789. 

v.  I  J07  111.  50:  1010. 

.;nn   County,  100  Cal.  419: 
186. 
rd,  8  Colo.  432:  221. 
v.  r;r.-int,  70  Hun,  233:  089. 

X.    Y.    295:   1102, 
1191. 
v.  Grippen,  20  Cal.  077:   162 


People  v.  Grover,  20°,  HI.  21:  757. 
v.  Sadden,  3  Denio,  220:  1059. 
v.  Ball,  8  Cola  485:  252,577,581. 
v.  Hamill,  134  111.  one,:  258. 
v.  Harnor,  1   App.  Div.  I~9:  419. 
v.  Harper,  91  111.  357:  o;::. 
v.  Harris,  12::  X.  Y.  70:  522. 
v.  Harrison,    191  111.  257:    700, 

708,  718,  722,885,  914. 
v.  Harrison,    92    111.    App.  643: 

722. 
v.  Hasbrouck,  11  Utah,  291:  10, 

127. 
v.  Hatch,  33  111.  9:  47,  110. 
v.  Hawker,  152  X.  Y.  234:  1179. 
v.  Hayes,  1  L0  X.   Y.  484:  1174, 

1175.  1189. 
v.  Hayne,  83  Cal.  Ill:  10. 
v.  Henshaw,  70  Cal.  436:   347. 
v.  Hess,  85  Mich.  128:  1031. 
v.  Hicks,  15  Barb.  100:  945. 
v.  Hicks,  98  Mich.  86:  981,  992. 
v.  Hill,  8  N.  Y.  449:  345. 
v.  Hill,  3  Utah,  334:  793,  796. 
v.  Hiller,  1 13  Mich.  209:  443, 554. 
v.  Milliard.   85   App.   Div.   507: 

707,  739. 
v.  Hills.  35  X.  Y.  449:  188,  241, 

633. 
v.  Hillsdale,  etc.  T.  Co.,  2  John. 

190:  1141. 
v.  Hinrichsen,  161  111.  223:  711, 

729,  929. 
v.  Hobson.48  Mich.  27:  484.555. 
v.  Hoffman,  97  111.  234:  797. 
v.  Hoffman,  110  III.  587:  164. 
v.  Hoi  ley,  12  Wend.  481:  1118. 
v.  House  of   Refuge,   22  App. 

Div.  254:  467. 
v.  Hoyrn,  20  How.  Pr.  76:  1071. 
v.  Hulse.  3  Hill.  309:  044,  755, 

9^:;.  1059,  126a 
v.  Huntley.  112  Mich.  569:  199, 

297,  469. 


TABLE   OF   OASES    CITED. 


clxxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


People  v.  Hurst,  41  Mich.  328:  265. 
v.  Hutchinson,  172  111.  486:  530, 

745,  921,  955. 
v.  Illinois  State  Reformatory, 

148  111.  413:  578. 
v.  Institute,  71  111.  229:  185. 
v.  Insurance  Co.,  19  Mich.  392: 

190,  228. 
v.  Irvin,  21  Wend.  128:  784. 
v.  Jackson,  etc.  Plank  Road  Co., 

9  Mich.  285:  1193,  1198. 
v.  Japinga.  115  Mich.  222:  291; 

428. 
v.  Jobs,  7  Colo.  475:  577. 
v.  Johnson,  95  Cal.  471:  409. 
v.  Johnson,   23  Colo.  150:  112, 

644,  1304. 
v.  Keller,  31  App.  Div.  248:  528. 
v.  Keller,  35  App.  Div.  493:  528. 
v.  Kelly,  99  Mich.  82:  296. 
v.  Kemp,  76  Mich.  410:  760. 
v.  Kenney,  96  N.  Y.  294:  577, 582. 
v.  Kent,  83  App.  Div.  554:  302. 
v.  Ketchum,  103  Mich.  443:  771. 
v.  King,  28  Cal.  265:  796. 
v.  King,  127  CaL  570:  300,  428. 
v.  Kinney,  110  Mich.  97:  469. 
v.  Kinsman,  51  Cal.  92:  641. 
v.  Kipley,  171  111.  44:  10,  360. 
v.  Kirk,  162  111.  138:  13,  132. 
v.  Knight,  13  Mich.  424:  1069. 
v.  Knopf,  183  111.  410:  396,  446, 

449,  576,  578. 
v.  Knopf,  186  111.  457:  538. 
v.  Knopf,  198  III  340:  72,  84, 92, 

602. 
v.  Koenig,  9  App.  Div.  436: 482. 
v.  Lake  Co.,  33  Cal.  487:  1119. 
v.  Lambert,  5  Mich.  349:  620, 

622. 
v.  Lambier,  5  Denio,  9:  1038, 

1040. 
v.  Lane,  53  App.  Div.  531:  283. 
v.  Latham,  203  III  24:  757. 


People  v.  Lawrence,  36  Barb.  177: 

114,   123,   188,  202,  658,  950. 

1071. 
v.  Lawrence,  41  N.  Y.  137:  205, 

224. 
v.  Leubischer,    34    App.     Div. 

577:  10. 
v.  Levee  District,  131  CaL  30: 

1237. 
v.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.   128 

Cal.  477:  40,  300,  616. 
v.  Livingston,    6    Wend.    526: 

545. 
v.  Lodi  High  School  Dist.,  124 

Cal.  694:  157,  428. 
v.  Loewenthal,  93  I1L  191:  84, 

87,  258,  886,  893. 
v.  Lohnas,  54  Hun,  604:  803. 
v.  Long  Island  R.  R.  Co.,   134 

N.  Y.  506:  8. 
v.  Lord,  9  App.  Div.  458:  797, 

800. 
v.  Lorillard,  135  N.  Y.285:  454. 
v.  Luby,  56  Mich.  551 :  581. 
v.  Luby,  99  Mich.  89:  95, 100. 
v.  Lyman,  2  Utah,  30:  872,  881. 
v.  Lyons,  29  App.  Div.  174: 1226. 
v.  Lyttle,  1  Idaho,  143:  457. 
v.  Mahaney,  13  Mich.  481 :  48, 72. 

78,  91,  92,  184,  185,  190,  204, 

431,  447,  605,  866,  867. 
v.  Mallary,  195  111.  582:  6, 12. 
v.  Manhattan  Co.,  9  Wend.  351. 

1193. 
v.  Marquiss,   192  111.  377:   527, 

536. 
v.  Martin,  178  HI.  611:  396. 
v.  Marx,  99  N.  Y.  377:  1019. 
v.  Maxwell,  73  Hun,  157:  5.")?. 
v.  May,  3  Mich.  598:  754,  887, 

889. 
v.  Mayor,  130  111.  406:  527. 
v.  Mayor,  etc.  of  N.  Y,  32  Barb. 

102:  472,  474, 


I 


i  \i;i K    OF    0A8E8    I  I  I  EDD. 


ihc  ntanaon  in  to  the  p«c**:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-608;  Vol  u,  pp.  005-1815. 


:.  10  Qtah,  B57: 
491. 

o,  51  CaL  860:  641. 
v.  MoCallum,  \   Neb.  183:  803, 

133. 
v.  MoCann,  10  N.Y.58:  352,846. 
v.  M  I  N.  V.  88:  910. 

v.  McClellan,  81  CaL  101:  946. 
v.  McC  ellan,  137  111.  852:  1158, 

nea 

59  N.Y.862:  1280, 

v.  McDonald,  5  Wya  526:  1174, 

1181. 
v.  M  -Kirov.  72  Mich.  446:  214, 

925. 
t.  McFadden,  81  CaL  489:  171, 

339. 
v.  Meighan,  1  Hill,  298:  1 
v.  Merrick,  61  Hun.  307:  914. 
v.  Metzk  t.  17  Cal.  524:  10S  I. 
v.  Miller,  88  Mich.  383:  230. 
v.  Miner,  47  III.  83: 
v.  Mitchell,  35  N.  Y.  551:  1230, 

1233. 
v.  Mitchell,  4  Sandf.  460:  1134. 
v.  Molyneux,  53  Barb.  9:  651. 
v.  Molyneux,  40  N.  Y.  113:  601, 

849. 
v.  Mori  no,  85  CaL  515:  1139. 
v.  Morris,  13  Wend.  325:  708. 
v.  Mount.  186  111.  500:  467. 
v.  Mount,  87  111.  App.  194:  467, 

v.  Mullender,  132  Cal.  217:  300, 

v.  Murphy,  202  111.  493:  456, 487. 
v.  Nelson,  133  ILL  565:  133,  135, 

225. 
v.  Nelson,  156  111.  864:  585. 
v.  N  m.  98:  1276. 

v.  Normal,  170  111.  468:  393. 

.  Y.  1  fentraL  eta  It  B,  Co.. 

156  N.  Y.  570:  557. 


le  v.  N.  Y.  etc.    R.   R.  Co.,  84 

N.  Y.  565:  828. 
v.  O'Brien,  88   N.  Y.   1C3:  266, 

8  ■  . 
v.  O'Brien,  ill  N.  Y.  1:  019. 
v.  O'Grady,  46  App.  Div.  213: 

528. 
v.  Olseu,  201  111.  491:  602 
v.  Onahan,  170  111.  449:   L8,  132, 

898,  101.  405,  406. 
v.  O'Neil,  51  Cal.  91:  641. 
v.  O'Neil,  54  Hun,  610:  648,  651. 
v.  Orange  Co.  Road  Co.,  175  N. 

Y.  84:  427. 
v.  Pacific  Imp.  Co.,  130  Cal.  442: 

4G5,  467,  527,  529. 
v.  Palmer,  52  N.  Y.  83:  462,  5  JS. 
v.  Palmer,  109  N.  Y.  110:  572, 

862.  1060. 
v.  Parks,  53  Cal.  635:  1S8,  215, 

251. 
v.  Parvin,  74  Cal.  519:  239: 
v.  Peacock,  98  111.  172:  641,  964, 

965,  1226. 
v.  Peck,  11  Wend.  604:  1120. 
v.  People's  Gas,  Light  &  C.  Co., 

205  111.  4S2:  191,  204. 
v.  Peralta,  3  Cal.  379:  1054. 
v.  Perry,  79  Cal.  105:  587. 
v.  Pico,  62  Cal.  50:  1006. 
v.  Pierson,  59  Hun,  450:  528. 
v.  Piatt,  17  John.  195:  640,  1192. 
v.  Police  Com'rs,  79  App.  Div. 

82:  518. 
v.  Pond,  67  Mich.  98:  265. 
v.  Porter,  90  N.  Y.  68:  579,  592. 
v.  Power,  25  111.  187:  1104. 
v.  Prill  en,  173  N.  Y.  07:  730. 
v.  Pugh,  57  Hun,  181 :  409. 
v.  Purdy,   2   Hill,   31:    62,  123, 

800,  867. 
v.  Quigg,  59  N.  Y.  83:  528. 
v.  Raymond,  186  I1L  407:  466, 

407. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


People  v.  Recorder,  6  Hill,  429:  645. 
v.  Reed,  5  Denio,  554:  1136. 
v.  Reis,  76  Cal.  269:  749. 
v.  Reynolds,  5  Gilm.  1:  164, 171. 
v.  Rice,  138  N.  Y.  151:  757. 
v.  Richards,  108  N.  Y.  137:  82?. 
v.  Richmond,  16  Colo.  274:  13, 

132. 
v.  Rio  Grande  Co.,  7  Colo.  App. 

229:  1154. 
v.  Ritchie.  12  Utah,  180:  784. 
v.  River  Raisin,  eta  R,  R.  Co., 

12  Mich.  389:  867,  1033. 
v.  Robinson.  17  Cal.  363:  872. 
v.  Rochester.  5  Lans.  11:  1119. 
v.  Roosevelt,  24  App.  Div.  17: 

454. 
v.  Rose,  167  I1L  147:  10& 
v.  Rose,  174  111.  310:  703. 
v.  Rosenburg,    138  N.  Y.  410: 

813,  964. 
v.  Ryan,  138  III.  263:  1003. 
v.  Ryder,  124  N.  Y.  500:  1217. 
v.  Salomon,  51  111.  37:  164,  170, 

312. 
v.  Sands,  102  Cal.  12:  527,  702. 
v.  San  Francisco,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

28  Cal.  254:  462. 
v.  San  Francisco,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

35  CaL  606:  927. 
v.  Scannel,  62  App.  Div.  249: 

502. 
v.  Sehemerhorn,  19  Barb.  540: 

1137,  1138. 
v.  Schoonmaker,  63  Barb.  44 

695,  698,  704. 
v.  Shepard,  36  N.  Y.  285:  925, 
v.  Sheriff,  19  Wend.  87:  332. 
v.  Simon,  176  III.  165:  158,  360 
v.  Sloan.  2  Utah,  326:  558. 
v.  Smith,  78  Hun,  179:  883. 
v.  Smith,  108  Mich.  527:  428. 
v.  Squire,  14  Daly,  154:  386,  399. 
v.  Stanley,  47  Cal.  113:  1185. 


People  v.  Starne,  35  111.  121:  72,  73, 
91. 
v.  Stevens,  13  Wend.  341:  708. 
v.  Stowl,  23  Barb.  349:  145. 
v.  Superior  Ct.,  100  Cal.  105: 

300,  463. 
v.    Supervisor,   14    Mich.   336: 

1095. 
v.  Supervisors,  13  Abb.  N.  C. 

421:  698. 
v.  Supervisors,  3  Barb.  332:  20. 
v.  Supervisors,  63  Barb.  83: 1226. 
v.  Supervisors,  6  Hun,  304:  645, 

1045. 
v.  Supervisors,  40  Hun,  353:  528. 
v.  Supervisors,  49  Hun,  32: 1150, 

1151. 
v.  Supervisors,  185  111.  288:  428. 
v.   Supervisors,    16  Mich.   254: 

215. 
v.  Supervisors,  20  Mich.  95: 1230. 
v.  Supervisors,  8  N.  Y.  317:  60, 

101,  12a 
v.  Supervisors,  16  N.  Y.  424:  635, 

G43,  683. 
v.    Supervisors,  34  N.  Y.  268: 

1129. 
v.  Supervisors,  43  N.  Y.  10:  252, 

253,  628,  633. 
v.  Supervisors,  67  N.  Y.  109:  442, 

444,  459,  511,  564. 
v.  Sutphin,  166  N.  Y.  163:  221, 

208,  290. 
v.  Svveetser,   1  Dak.  295:    756, 

797. 
v.  Syracuse,  59  Hun,  258:  1154. 
v.  Tanner,  128  N.  Y.  416:  966. 
v.  Taylor,  96  Mich.  576:  141,  798. 
v.  Terry,  108  N.  Y.  1:  135. 
v.  Thompson,  67  CaL  627:  1124. 
v.  Thompson,  155  11L  451:  5,  12, 

132. 
v.  Thornton,  186  I1L  162:  467, 
517,  520. 


cl.wvi 


TAB!  l.    OF    I   \~i CS    I  l  I  i.i>. 


tn  to  the  paces:  Vol  1.  pp.  1  coa;  Vol  11,  pp.  605-M6. 


■0  T.Tibbette,4Cow.861:  1886, 

1249. 
v.  Tighe,  5  Hun,  26:  758,  754. 
v.  Tiphaine,  8  Parker,  041:458. 

b  lale,  57  Cai  104:  481,  488. 
v.  '1  llun,  488:  589. 

v.  Torner,  49   Hun,  460:   1030. 

r.  lyler,  86  CaL  500:  505. 
v.  Tyler,  7  Midi.  161:  658. 
v.  Upson,  7'.'  Hun,  87:   436,518. 
v.  Utah  (,'oni'rs,  7   Utah,  279: 

.   101,  955. 
v.  Utioa  Ins.  Co.,  15  John.  358: 

710,  1038,  1051. 
v.  Van  Pelt,  130  Mich.  621:  490. 
v.  Vosburgh,  70  Hun.  502:469. 
v.  Wabash  Ry.  Co.,  138  111.  85: 

100a 

v.  Walker,  17  N.  Y.  502:  330. 
v.  Wallace,  70  111.  680:  94,  368, 

423. 
v.   Warden,    6   App.   Div.    520: 

1170. 
v.  Warden.  SI  Hun,  434:  -109. 
v.  Warden,  39  Misc.  113:  15S. 
v.  Waters,  4  Misc.  1:  6,  9. 
v.    Watseka    Camp    Sleeting 

Ass'n,    160   111.    576:    1003, 

1007. 
v.  Webster,  8  Misc.    133:  302, 

v.  We  52  App.  Div.  583:  730. 
v.  Wemple,  115  N.  Y.  302:  694. 
v.    Weston,   3    Neb.  312:  844, 

v.  Whipple,  17  CaL  592:  95. 
v.  Whitney's  Point,  100  N.  Y. 

81:  I 
v.  Williams,  64  CaL  87:871. 
v.  Wil  sea,  60  131. 

v.  V.  -.  136  N.  5 

mute,  1  Dak.  63:  562. 


People  v.  Wood,  71  N.  Y.  371:  051. 
v.  Woods.  7  CaL  579:  1199. 
v.    Worden   Grocery  Co.,  118 

.Mich.  001:  298. 
v.    Wright,   30   Colo.  439:   221, 

100. 
v.  Wright,  70   HI.  388:  356,446, 

624,  632. 
V.  Yancey,  107  I1L  255:  464. 
v.  Young,  18  App.  Div.  162:  13, 
130. 
Peoples'  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Billing,  101 

Mich.  186:  410. 
Peoples'  G.  L.  &  C.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

114  Fed.  384:  1195. 
Peoples'  S.  B.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Batchel- 
der  Egg  Case  Co.,  51  Fed.  Lit):  700. 
Peoria,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Duggan,  109 
III.  537:  413,  400. 
v.  People,  144  111.  458:  704,  730. 
v.  People,  198  111.  318:  1010. 
Pepperell  v.  Burrell,  2  Dowl.  P.  C. 

074:  330. 
Perchard  v.  Hey  wood,  8  T.  R  472: 

iiield  v.  Aumick,  116  Iowa,  383: 
1158. 

Lval  v.  Cowychee,  etc.  Dist,  15 
Wash.  480:  268,  290. 
Perdicaris  v.  bridge  Co.  29  N.  J.  L. 

367:  007. 

Pereria  v.  Wallace,  129  Cal.  397:  761. 

Perine  v.  Forbush,  97  Cal.  805:  1 1  15. 

Perkins  v.  Heert,  158  N.  Y.  300:  302. 

v.  Led  better,  08  Miss.  307:  1153. 

v.  Lyons,  111  Iowa,  192:  1158. 

v.  Perkins,  62  Barb.  531:   845, 

862, 
v.  Philadelphia,  156  Pa.  St.  539: 

306,  352,  401. 
v.  Philadelphia,  150  Pa.  St.  554: 

852,  401. 
v.  Bcales,  0  Tenn.  Cas.  035:  19. 
ell,  1  W.  Black.  059:  881. 


TABLE    OF   CAS3S    CITED. 


clxxvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Perkins  v.  Smith,  116  N.  Y.  441: 
758. 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  R  R,  Co.,  103 

Mo.  53:  420. 
v.  Thorn  burgh,  lOCal.  189:  638, 
922. 
Perrault  v.  Minn,  etc.,  R  R  Co.,  117 

Wis.  520:  1312. 
Perrine  v.  Chesapeake  etc.  Canal 

Co.,  9  How.  172:  1035. 
Perry  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Gratt. 
632:  642. 
v.  Denver,  27  Colo.  93:  1171. 
v.  Gross,  25  Neb.  826:  231. 
v.  Minneapolis  St.  Ry.  Co.,  69 

Minn.  165:  1225. 
v.  Mitchell,  5  Denio.  537:  947. 
v.  New  Orleans  R.  R  Co.,  55 

Ala.  413:  627. 
v.  Newsom,  1  Ired.  Eq.  28:  627, 

634,  658. 
v.  State,  87  Ala.  30:  1183. 
Perry  County  v.  Jefferson  Co.,  94 
111.  214:  929. 
v.  R.  R.  Co.,  58  Ala,  546:  52,  71, 
78,  83. 
Perryman   v.   Greer,   39  Ala.   133: 

1062,  1294. 
Persons  v.  Gardner,  42  App.  Div. 

490:  1169,  1227. 
Peterman  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

105  Fed.  335:  785. 
Peters  v.  Bain,  133  U.  S.  670:  613. 
v.  Condron,  2  S.  &  R.  80:  1112. 
v.  State,  96  Tenn.  682:  422, 1298. 
v.  Vawter,  10  Mont.  201:  847. 
Petersburg  v.  Metzker,  21  111.  205: 

10:J3. 
Peterson  v.  Bingham,  13  Wash.  178: 
767. 
v.  Currier,  62  111.  App.  163:  763. 
v.  Gittings,  107  Iowa,  306:  861. 
v.  State,  104  Tenn.  127:  200,  231, 
404,  406,  430. 


Peto  v.  West  Ham,  2  E.  &  E.  144: 

809. 
Petri  v.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  142 

U.  S.  644:  731,  732. 
Petrie  v.  Columbia,  etc.  R  R  Co., 

29  S.  C.  303:  1292,  1293. 
Petterson  v.  Berry,  125  Fed.  902: 

1197. 
Pettit  v.  Fretz,  33  Pa.  St.  118:  1062. 
Petty,  In  re,  22  Kan.  477:  11S7. 
Peugnet,  Matter  of,  67  N.  Y.  444: 

443,  444. 
Peyton  v.  Mosely,  3  T.  B.  Mon.  77: 
472,  513. 
v.  Smith,  4  McCord,  476:  19. 
Pferrmann,  Ex  parte,  134  Cal.  143: 

216,  249. 
Phelan  v.  Johnson,  7  Ir.  L.  535:  929, 

930. 
Phelps  v.  Hawley,  52  N.  Y.  23:  1155. 
v.  Racey,  60  N.  Y.  10:  1297. 
v.  Rightor,  9  Rob.  (La.)  531:  845. 
v.  Rooney,  9  Wis.  70:  1199. 
v.  Wood,  9  Vt.  399:  1280. 
Phelps-Bigelow   Windmill    Co.    v. 
North  Am.   Trust  Co.,  62  Kan. 
529:  1215. 
Philadelphia  v.  Christman,   6  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  29:  1248. 
v.  Haddington,  115  Pa.  St.  291: 

391. 
v.  Kates,  150  Pa.  St.  30:  464. 
v.  Market  Co.,  161  Pa.  St.  522: 

239. 
v.  Masonic  Home,  160  Pa.  St. 

572:  1006. 
v.  Pepper.  18  Phila.  419:   303, 

384, 391. 
v.  Ridge  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  102  Pa. 

St.  190:  929. 
v.  Ridge  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  142  Pa. 

St.  484:  205,  231. 
v.  Westminster,  162  Pa.  St.  105: 
392. 


clwviii 


TABLE    OF    0A8E8    i'l  lED. 


\ .  i  l,  pp,  1  006;  Vol.  li,  pp.  cory-1815. 


■  k  v.  Lambeth,  4  Roh,  468: 
611. 
Philadelphia,  etc  Ca'a  Petition,  200 

Pa  194,  464. 

Philadelphia,  etc  R  R  Co.  v.  Cata- 
wissa  R  R  Co.,  58  Pa.  St. 
687,  B86,  1065. 
v.  Lehman,  56  Md.  209:  876 
Philadelphia,  M.  &  St.  Ry.  Co.,  Pe- 
er, 208  Pa  St.  354:  579. 
Philips    v.    Christian    Co.,  £7  111. 

App.  481:  S14, 
Phillips   v.    Ash,  63  Ala.  414:  473, 
105G. 
v.  Bridge  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  222: 
199. 

immon wealth,  44  Pa.  St. 

197:  932, 

v.  Covington,  etc.  Bridge  Co., 

■  2  Met.   (Ky.)  210:  188,  221. 

v.  Freyer,  80  Mich.  254:  1258. 

v.  Hopwood,   10    B.   &   C.    39: 

544,  551. 
v.  Hunter,  2  H.  Black.  402:  27. 
v.  Lewis,  3  Term.  Cas.  230:  13, 

132,  304. 
v.  Mayor,  1  Hilt.  483:  221,  345, 

v.  Missouri  Pac.  Pu  R,  Co.,  86 

Mo.  510:  412,  413. 
v.  Phillips,  L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  173: 

1109. 
v.  Poland,   L.    R.    1    C.  P.  204: 

819. 
v.  IV,;  e'a  Heirs,  10  B.  Mon.  172: 

humacher,   10  Hun,  405: 
401. 
•■■.  15  Ga  518:  722. 
Philpott  v.  St.  George's  Hospital,  0 

EL  L.  Cas  754. 

Phinizy  v.  Eve,  108  Ga.  360:  8. 
Phinney   v.    Phinney,  81   Me.  450: 


Phinney  v.  Sheppanl,  etc.  1  lo^pital, 

88  Md.  888:  801. 
Phoenix  Ass'nCo.  v.  FireDept,,  117 

Ala.  681:  451,493,  r87,  788 
Ph.. -nix  lus.  Co.  v.  Welch,  29  Kan. 

672:  189. 
Picken  v.  Post,  99  Fed.  659:  304. 
l'irkeriiig    v.     Anirk,    9    Mackey 
(D.  C),  169:    650. 
v.  Fisk,  6  Vt.  107:  23,  24 
Pickett  v.  Pipkin,  64  Ala.  520:  627. 
Pickle  v.  Finley,  91  Tex.  484:  586. 
Pickton    v.    Fargo,    10    N.   D.  409: 

1117,  1122,  1139. 
Piedmont  Ave.,  In  re,  59  Minn.  522: 

248. 
Pier  v.  Oneida  Co.,  102  Wis.  338: 

1160,  1166. 
Pierce,  Ex  parte,  87  Ala  110:  436. 
Pierce  v.  City  Clerk,  7  Wash.  132: 
1133. 
v.  Commercial   Invest.  Co.,  30 

Wash.  272:  491. 
v.  County  Com'rs.  117  Ala.  569: 

304. 
v.  Delamater,  1  N.  Y.  17:  402. 
v.  Dillingham,  96  111.  App.  300: 

963. 
v.  Kimball,  9  Me.  54:  576,  624 
v.  Toley,  5  Met.  168:  1287. 
v.  Van  Dusen,  78  Fed.  693:  694, 
722,  734 
Pierce  Co.  v.  Spike,  19  Wash.  652: 

529. 
Pierpont   v.   Crouch,  10  Cal.   315: 

188,  500. 
Pierson    v.    People,    204    111.    456: 

1153. 
Piggott  v.   Rush,  4  Ad.  &  EL  912: 

1278,  1282. 
Pignoz  v.    Burnett,   119   Cal.  157: 

1158,  1168. 
Pike  v.  Hoare,  2  Eden,  184:  70L 
v.  Megoun,  44  Mo.  491:  684. 


TABLE    OF   CASES   CITED.  clxxix 

The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  L,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Pilcher  v.  Faircloth,  135  Ala.  311: 

766. 
Pilkington  v.  Cooke,  16  M.  &  W. 

615:  53a 
Pillow   v.   Bushnell,  5  Barb.  156: 

605. 
Pirn  v.  Nicholson,  6  Ohio  St.  178: 

96,  188. 
Pinckney,  In  re,  47  Kan.  89:  134, 

191,  217. 
Pinckney  v.  Burrage,  31  N.  J.  L.  21: 

1282. 
Pingree  v.  Snell,  42  Me.  53:  516,  759. 
Pinkerton  v.  Easton,  L.  R.  16  Eq. 
492:  1109. 
v.  Penn.  Traction  Co.,  193  Pa. 
St.  229:  259. 
Pinkham  v.  Dorothy,  55  Me.  135: 

1014. 
Pinkum  v.  Eau  Claire,  81  Wis.  301: 

1217,  1283,  1284. 
Pioche  v.  Paul,  22  Cal.  110:  899. 
Pioneer,  The,  Deady,  72:  938. 
Piper  v.  Gunther,  95  Ky.  115:  340. 
Piscataqua    Bridge    Co.    v.    New 
Hampshire  Co.,  7  N.  H.  35:  576, 
1023. 
Pitman    v.   Bump,   5    Ore.  17:  20, 
1288. 
v.  Commonwealth,  2  Rob.  (Va.) 

813:  481,  484,  556. 
v.  Flint,  10  Pick.  504:  931. 
Pitte   v.  Shipley,  46  Cal.  154:  724, 

758. 
Pitts,  Ex  parte,  35  Fla.  149:  578. 
Pitts  v.  Daly,  5  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  528 
303. 
v.  State,  29  Tex.  Ct.  App.  374 
981. 
Pittsburg  v.  Reynolds,  48  Kan.  360 
585,  652. 
v.  Walter,  69  Pa.  St.  365:  1140, 
Pittsburgh  v.  Kennedy,  12  Pa.  Dist, 
Ct,  217:  303. 


Pittsburgh,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Martin, 
53  Ohio  St.  386:  382. 
v.  Montgomery,  152  Ind.  1:  199, 

263,  417,  587. 
v.  S.  W.  Pa.  Ry.  Co.,  77  Pa.  St. 

173:  914. 
v.  Vining's  Adm'r,  27  Ind.  513: 
1293. 
Pittsburgh's  Appeal,  115  Pa  St.  4: 

1033. 
Pittsburgh's  Petition,   138  Pa.  St. 

401:  384,  390. 
Plainfield,  Treas.  of,  v.  Hall,  61  N. 

J.  L.  437:  306. 
Planche  v.  Fletcher,  1  Doug.  257: 

25. 
Plantation   No.  9  v.  Bean,  36  Me. 

359:  554. 
Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6   How. 
301:  1193,  1196. 
v.  State,  6  S.  &  M.  628:  462,  636. 
Piatt  v.  Craig,  66  Ohio  St,  75:  382, 
401,  424. 
v.  Lock,  1  Plowd.  35:  1082. 
v.  Stewart.  10  Mich.  260:  1048. 
Plattsburg  v.  People's  Telephone 

Co.,  88  Mo.  App.  306:  473. 
Pleasant   Hill  v.  Dasher,  120  Mo. 

675:  535. 
Pleimann  v.  Hartung,  84  Mo.  App. 

283:  766. 
Plowman,  Ex  parte,  53   Ala.  440: 

1244. 
Plum  v.  Kansas  City,  101  Mo.  525: 

769. 
Plumb    v.    Christie,    103   Ga.  686: 
230. 
v.  Sawyer,  21  Conn.  351 :  641. 
Plumbly  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Met. 

413:  1185. 
Plummer  v.  Borsheim,  8  N.  D.  565: 
394,  762. 
v.  People,  74  111.  361:  215,  648, 
649. 


. 


TAB!  i:    OF    0  \-is    CITED. 


■  are  to  the  pa  -  ■     Vol  I,  pp,  1  BOB^VoL  IT,  pp.  G05-181B. 


Plammer  v.  Plumtner,  87  Miea  185: 

887,  • 
Plumstead    Board    of   Works    v. 
i  ikraan,  L  K.  18  Q.  B.  D.  878: 

.uth  Borough,  167  Pa.  St  612: 

ID    v.    Dun  com  bo.   1    II.  &  N. 
888. 

SI  ite  85  Tena  495:  759. 
Poindexter  v.  Barker,  2  Ilayw.  173: 

8ia 

Point  Roberts  Fishing  Co.  v.  George 

.  Co,  28  Wash.  200:  900. 
Poling  v.   Parsons,  38  W.  Va,  80: 

1001.  1078. 
Polk's  Lessee  v.  Wendall,  9Cranch. 

B7:  61G.  620. 
Pollard,  Ex  parte,  40  Ala.  99:  199, 

1:00. 

Pollard  v.  Wegener,  13  Wis.  509: 

Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  158 

U.  S.  601:  595,  60a 
Pomeroy   v.    Ainsworth,  22   Barb. 
118:  611. 
v.  Beach,  149  In d.  511:  125& 
v.  Gregory,  66  CaL  574:  1197. 
v.  Po  93  Wis.  262:  784. 

Pom  fret   v.   Windsor,  2  Ves.  480: 

Poncin  v.  Furtb.  15  Wash.  201:  242. 
Pond  v.  Maddox,  38  Cal.  572:  435. 
v.  Negus,   3    Mass.    230:    1117, 
111ft 
Pons  v.  State,  49  Miss.  1:  482. 

.  Lafayette  Bldg.  Ass'n,  71 
Ind.  357: 
Poo!  v.  Brown.  98  Mo.  675:  535,  544. 
v.  Simmons.  134  Cal.  621:  721, 

. 
v.  Wedemever,    56   Tex.    887: 
1071. 
Buffalo,  122  N.  Y.  592 


Poor  v.  Watson,  92  Mo.  App.  89: 

661,  955. 
Poor   Directors  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7 

W.  &  S.  236:  562. 
Poor  District  v.  Poor  District,  109 

Pa.  St.  579:  644. 
Pope  v.  Phifer,  3  Heisk.  701:  343, 

857. 
Porter  v.  Glenn,  87  III.  App.  106: 
1158. 
v.  Innes,  79  Cal.  183:  1197. 
v.  Kingfisher  Co.  Com'rs,  6  Okl. 

550:  458. 
v.  Waring,  69  N.  Y.  250:  879. 
Porterfield  v.  Clark,  2  How.  76:  616. 
Porter's  Lessee  v.  Coche,  Peck,  30: 

610. 
Portland  v.   Gaston,   38  Ore.  533: 
661,  955. 
v.  Stock,  2  Ore.  69:  432. 
Portland  Bank  v.  Apthorp,  12  Mass. 
252:  888. 
v.  Maine   Bank,  11  Mass.  204: 
327. 
Portland  Nat  Bank  v.  Scott,  20  Ore. 

421:  39,  616. 
Portland   R.  R.  Extension  Co.,  Ap- 
pellants. 94  Me.  565:  409. 
Portsmouth  Livery  Co.  v.  Watson, 

10  Mass.  91:  625. 
Port   Wardens  of  N.  Y.   v.    Cart- 
wright,  4  Sandf.  236:  1019. 
Posey  v.  Pressley,  60  Ala.  243:  759, 
;  0. 

v.  ( .'arrow,  18  Neb.  682:  337. 
v.  Supervisors,   105  U.  S.  667: 

70,  91,  99,  605. 
tl  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Farmville 
&  P.  R.  R.  Co.,  96  Va.  661: 
902. 
v.  Southern   Ry.   Co.,   89  Fed. 
190:  788,  790. 
Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lenoir,  107  Ala. 
640:  96a 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxxxi 


The  rererences  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-G03;  Vol.  IT,  pp.  605-1315. 


Postmaster    General   v.   Early,   12 

Wheat.  136:  635. 
Potter  v.  Ajax  Mia.  Co.,  19  Utah, 
421:  1229. 
v.  Col  lis,  19  App.  Div.  392:  302. 
v.  Hull,  189  U.  S.  292:  890. 
v.  National  Bank,  103  U.  S.  163: 

677. 
v.  Safford,  50  Mich.  46:  659,  731. 
Potter  Co.  W.  Co.  v.  Austin,  206 

Pa.  St.  297:  306. 
Potwin  v.  Johnson,  108  111.  70:  164. 
Poughkeepsie   Bridge  Co.,  Matter 

of,  108  N.  Y.  483:  1041. 
Poulson  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  40  N. 

J.  L.  563:  462. 
Poulsum  v.  Thirst,  L.  R.  2  C.  P.  449: 

716. 
Pound  v.  Plumbstead,  L.  R.  7  Q.  B. 

183:  1067. 
Pounds  v.  Rogers,  52  Kan.  558:  1208. 
Powder  Riv.  Cattle  Co.  v.  Custer 

Co.  Com'rs,  9  Mont.  145:  753 
Powdrell  v.  Jones,  2  Sra.  &  G.  407: 

722. 
Powell  v.  Brandon,  24  Miss.  363: 
610. 
v.  Durden,  61  Ark.  21:  339. 
v.  Jackson,  51  Mich.  129:  112. 
v.  King.  7S  Minn.  83:  525. 
v.  Sherwood,  162  Mo.  605:  135, 

417,  1064. 
v.  Smith,  74  Miss.  142:  909. 
v.  Spackman,  7  Idaho,  692:  702. 
v.  State.  69  Ala.  10:  577,  593. 
v.  Supervisors,  88  W.  Va.  707: 

191,  203,  258. 
v.  Tut  tie,  3  N.  Y.  396:  645,  997, 
1046, 1047. 
Power  v.   Co.  Com'rs,  7  Mont.  82: 
501, 694. 
v.  Hafley,  (Ky.)  4  S.  W.  683:  770. 
v.  Kitching,  10  N.  D.  254:  186, 
191,  303. 


Power  v.  Penny,  59  Miss.  5:  1231. 
Powers  v.  Barney,  5  Blackf.  202:  541, 
999. 
v.  Eergen,  6  N.Y.  358:  627. 
v.  Commonwealth,  90  Ky.  167: 

624,  632. 

v.  Inferior  Ct.,  23  Ga.  65:  170. 

v.  McKenzie,  90  Tenn.  167:  212. 

v.  Shepard,  48  N.  Y.  510:  442, 

443,  494. 

Powers'  Appeal,  29  Mich.  504:  330, 

335,  644. 
Powlter's  Case,  11  Coke,   33:   648, 

650. 
Praigg  v.  Western  Paving  &  Sup- 
ply Co.,  143  Ind.  358:  137. 
Prangley,  In  re,  4  Ad.  &  El.  781: 

330. 
Prather  v.  United  States,  9  App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  82:  991,  992,  993. 
Pratt,  In  re,  19  Colo.  138:  230,  970. 
Pratt  v.  Brown,  135  Cak  649:  274, 
409. 
v.  Brown,  80  Tex.  608:  771. 
v.  Miller,  109  Mo.  78:  784,  785. 
v.  Short,  79  N.  Y.  437:  939. 
v.    Street    Commissioner,    139 

Mass.  559:  518,  521. 

v.  Swan,  16  Utah,  483:  524. 

Prell  v.  McDonald,  7  Kan.  426:  617, 

624. 
Prentiss  v.  Danaher,  20  Wis.  311: 

684. 
Presbrey  v.  Williams,  15  Mass.  193: 

328,  329,  332. 
Prescott  v.   Beebe,   17    Kan.   320: 

298. 
President,  etc.  of  L.  v.  Harrison,  9 

B.  &  C.  524:  556. 
Preston  v.  Fin  ley.  72  Fed.  850:  304 
v.  Louisville,  84  Ky.  118:   369, 

385. 
v.  Surgrine,  Peck,  SO:  610. 
Pretty  v.  Solly,  26  Beav.  606:  661. 


TAl'.l  1      •    :      CASKS    CI  1'Kl). 


i.-  the  pace*:  Vol  I.  pp.  1-608;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


Prlc  0  Pa  Diet  Ct 

v.   Porrest,  178  U.  S.  410:  654, 

v.    Bopkin,  13  Mich.  318:  312, 

818,  1287. 
v.  Lancaster  Co.,  1S9  Pa.  St  95: 
391. 

v.  Lush,  10  Mont.  61:  784,1145. 
v.  Moundsville,  43  W.  Va.  523: 

73,  84   86,  88,  315. 
v.  Nesbitt,  29  Md.  263:  552. 
\.  S     i-'ty  for  Savings,  64  Conn. 

644,  1258,  1260. 

v.  White.  27  Ma  275:  625,  633. 

v.  Whitman,  8  Cal.  417:  329,335. 

v.  r..vhange,  etc.  Ins.  Co., 

6  Wis.  89:  872. 

Prigg     v.    Pennsylvania,    16    Pet. 

631,  762. 
Prigge  v.  Adams,  Skin,  350:  632. 
Prime,  Matter  of,  64  Hun,  50:  1159, 

1166 
Prime,  Matter  of,  136N.  Y.  347: 1166. 
Prime    v.  McCarthy,  92  Iowa,  569: 

1313. 
Prince  v.  Crocker,  166  Mass.  347: 
607. 
v.  Lamb,  Breese,  378:  611. 
Prince  Georges  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  97 

Md.  330:9. 
Prine's  Estate,  Matter  of,  136  N.  Y. 

847:  445,  524,  1038. 
Pringle  v. Carter,  1  Hill  (S.  C.)  53: 
1051. 

i  Ass*n  v.  Ash  by,  93  Ya.  667: 
13.  132,  137,  304,  909. 
Pritchard  v.  Savannah,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  87  Ga.  294:  1225. 

v.  Stanilaus  Co.,  73  Cal. 

Pritz,  Ex  parte,  9  Iowa.  30:  401,  42!'. 

50  Ohio  St.  378: 
13,  137,  I 


Probasco  Co.  v.  Moundsville,  11  W, 

Va,  601:  1002. 
Proctor  v.   Cascade  Co.,  20  Mont, 

815:  518. 
Proprietors  of  Locks,  etc  v.  Lowell, 

7  Gray,  228:  1044. 
Proprietors  of  Mills  v.  Randolph, 

157  Mass.  345:  619,  050. 
Prospect  Park,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  In  re, 

67  N.  Y.  371:  219. 
Protection  Life  v.  Palmer,  81  111. 

8S:  327. 
Protector,  The,  1  W.  Rob.  45:  1005. 
Protestant  Epis.  School,  Matter  of, 

58  Barb.  161:  641,  1162. 
Providence  v.  Union  R  R.  Co.,  12 

R.  I.  473:  528. 
Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet. 

514:  1023,1194. 
Providence,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Nor- 
wich, etc.  R.  R  Co.,  138  Mass.  277: 

1044. 
Provident  Life  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Mer- 
cer Co.,  170  U.  S.  593: 1030. 
Pryce  v.  Monmouthshire  Canal  & 

Ry.   Co.,  L.  R  4  App.  Cas.  197: 

998. 
Pryor  v.  Rochester,  57   App.  Div. 
486:  1118. 
v.  Ryburn,  16  Ark.  671:  1015, 
1282. 
Public  School  Trustees  v.  Trenton, 

30  N.  J.  Eq.  667:  462. 
Puckett'v.  Springfield,  97  Tenn.  2G4: 
518,  520,  1133. 
v.  Young,  112  Ga.  578:  434. 
Pue  v.  Hetzell,  16  Md.  539:  769. 
I',i.  i  t  Sound  Nat.  Bank  v.  Seattle, 

9  Wash.  608:  707. 
Pugh  v.  Duke  of  Leeds,  2   Cowp. 
714:  329. 
v.  State.  2  Head,  227:  872. 
Pullan  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

4  Biss.  35:  1035. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


clxxxiii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Pullis  Bros.  Iron  Co.  v.  Boemler,  91 

Mo.  App.  85:  1261. 
Pullman  v.  Hungate,  8  Wash.  519: 

394. 
Pultzer  v.  New  York,  48  App.  Div. 

6:  781. 
Pump  v.  Lucas  Co.,  69  Ohio  St.  448: 

355. 
Purdon  v.  Seligman,  78  Mich.  132: 

1016. 
Purdy  v.  People,  4  Hill,  384:  62,  605, 

607. 
Purnell  v.  Mann,  105  Ky.  87:  132, 

134,  137,  447. 
Pursell  v.  New  York  Life  Ins.  etc. 

Co.,  42  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct  383:  522, 

922. 
Purvis  v.  Ross,  158  Pa.  St.  20:  432. 
Pushor   v.   Morris,   53    Minn.   325: 

573. 
Putnam  v.  Longley,  11  Pick.  487: 
911,  1072. 
v.  St.  Paul.  75  Minn.  514:  191, 
200. 
Pyle  v.  Maulding,  7  J.  J.  Marsh, 

202:  327,  329. 


Quackenbush   v.    Danks,  1   Denio, 
128,  641,  12C0. 
v.  Danks,  3  Denio,  594:  641. 
v.  United  States,  177  U.  S.  20: 
671. 
Quain  v.  Russell,  8  Hun,  319:  1266. 
Quarrier  v.  Colston,  1  Phil.  147:  25. 
Quarterbaum  v.  State,   79  Ala.  1: 

927. 
Queen  v.  Castro,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  360: 
747. 
v.  Champneys,  LE.6C.  P.  384: 

529. 
v.  Clarence,  L.  R.  22  Q.  B.  23: 
911. 


Queen. v.  Griffiths  (1891),  2  Q.  B.  145: 
1160. 
v.  Hopkins  (1893),  1  Q.  B.  621: 

703,  909. 
v.  Justices,  8  Ad.  &  El.  933:  330. 
v.  Justices,  7  Jurist,  396:  336. 
v.  Pearce,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  386: 

686,  687. 
v.  St.  Giles,  3  E.  &  E.  224:  444. 
Quern,  The,  93  Fed.  834:  1161,  1192. 
Quick  v.  Miller,  103  Pa.  St.  67:  103?, 
1294 
v.  Whitewater  Tp.,  7  Ind.  570: 
668. 
Quigley  v.  Gorham,  5  Cal.  418:  747. 
Quilkien  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf.  581:  544. 
Quilter  v.  Mapleson,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B. 

D.  672:  1160. 
Quin  v.  O'Keeffe,  10  Ir.  C.  L.  (N.  S.) 
393:  663,  665,  724,  797,  910,  914.      " 
Quincy  v.  O'Brien,  24  111.  App.  591: 

466,  527. 
Quinlon  v.  Rogers,  12  Mich.  16S:  593. 
Quinn  v.  Cumberland  Co..  162  Pa. 
St.  55:  273,  534,  539. 
v.  Fidelity,  etc.  Ass'n,  100  Pa. 

St.  382:  644,  1252. 
v.  Lowell  Electric  L.   Co.  140 

Mass.  106:  812. 
v.  New  York,  68  App.  Div.  175: 
469. 

R. 

Rabun  Co.  v.  Habersham   Co.,  79 

Ga.  248:  739,  797. 
Rachel,  The  Schooner,    v.   United 

States,  6  Cr.  329:    545,  546,  519, 

552. 
Radio  v.  Detroit,  90  Mich.  92:  498. 
Radcliffe    v.   Bartholomew,   L   R. 

(1892).  12  B.  161:  327. 
Rader  v.  Union  Tp.,  39  N.  J.  L.  509: 

252,  581,  601. 


clx 


TAlil  KS    CI  I'KD. 


Ifct  nflaNBOW  an  to  the  pagev  Vol  '.  pp.  I  808;  VoL  H,  pp.  606  1818, 


r,99Mioh.481: 
i  ,..    Road    Board   v. 
Evans,  B  R  i  316. 

si,  2  W.  Blaok  1038: 

rty  v.  Bookman,  46  Iowa,  195: 

x    State,  86  Tena  873:  260, 
.  lift 

-.  Justices,  10  Ga.  65:  711, 
L095. 
.!i  i  v.  Wynn.  87  Ala,  32:  871. 
Rah  way  Sav.  Enst.  v.  Rahway,  53 

N.  J.  L  48:  231. 

Railroad  v.  Hurst.  11  Heisk.  625:  3a 

v.  McKaskill,  94  N.  C.  716:  1056 

v.  Merrell,  11  Heisk.  715:  1160. 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Barron,  5  Wall.  00: 

i'29a 

v.  Crider,  91  Tenn.  489:  200,  225, 

120,  447. 
v.  I  fovernor,  23  Mo.  353:  53. 
v.  Hughes,  94  Tenn.  430:  741. 
1312. 
Railroad  Ca's  v.  Schutte,  103  U.  S. 

118:  585. 
Railway    Co.    v.    Board     of    Pub. 
Works.  28  W.  Va.  264:  20. 
v.  B-  Shears,  50  Ark.  237:  702, 
744 
Railroad  Tax  Cases,  13  Fed.  722:  53. 
Co.  Ct.  v.  United  States,  105 
U.  S.  732:  1213. 

ton  v.  Lothain.  18  Ind.  303:  18. 
Qder  v.  Hammond,  2  John. 
1015. 
..   Hart  well,   126  CaL  443: 

ognano  v.  Crook,  65  Ala.  226: 

-.iy  v.  Whitbeck,  81  111.  App. 

v.  Gibbs,  1  B.  &  C.  319: 


si  j  v.  Glenn,  88  Kan.  371:  28. 
v.  Tod,  95  Tex.  614:  891. 
Ranoh   v.  Commonwealth,  79  Pa. 

6t.  490:  607. 
Rand  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Gratt. 
788:  1185. 
v.  Rand,  4  N.  H.  207:  327. 
Randall  v.  Butler  Co.,  65  Kan.  20: 
466,  467,  501. 
v.  Pryor,  4  Ohio,  424:  947. 
v.  Richmond  &   D.  R   R  Co., 

101  N.  C.  410:  703,744. 

v.  Richmond  &  D.   R.   R.  Co., 

107  X.  C.  748:  703.  705,  909. 

v.  Van  Rensselaer,  1  John.  95: 

25. 

Rand.  McNally  &  Co.  v.  Hartranft, 

29  Wash.  591:  1161,  1191. 
Randol  v.  Garoutte,   78   Mo.   App. 

609:  749,  760. 
Randolph  v.  Bayne,44  Cal.  366:  68ft 
v.  Builders  &  P.  Supply  Co.,  106 
Ala.  501:  190,  157,  577,  592, 
593. 
v.  State,  9  Tex.  521:  645,  835, 
962. 
Rankin  v.  Colgan,  92  Cal.  605:  130. 
v.  Cowden,   66:111.   App.    137: 

530,  536. 
v.  Pine, .4  Abb.  Pr.  309:  918. 
v.  S  -hofield,  70  Ark.  83:  1158, 

1283,  1584,  1286. 
v.  Tenbrook,  6  Watts,  388:  1005. 
Ranoul  v.  Griffe,  3  Md.  54:  853. 
Ransome  v.    State,  91    Tenn.  716: 

434 
Rantz  v.  Barnes,   40  Ohio  St.   43: 

1  J75. 
Rape  v.  Heaton,  9  Wis.  328:  611, 
809. 

;ussen  v.   Baker,  7  Wyo.  117: 
955. 
Ratclifl  v.  People,  22  Colo.  75:  442. 
Ratcliffe  v.  Marrs,  87  Ky.  26:  1191. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


clxxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Rathbone  v.  Bradford,  1  Ala.  (N.  S.) 
312:  18,  308. 
v.  Hamilton,  4  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

475:  855. 
v.   Hopper,   57  Kan.   240:  216, 

273,  1030. 
v.  Kiowa  Co.   Com'rs.,  73  Fed. 

395:  341,  1030. 
v.  Kiowa  Co.  Com'rs,  83  Fed. 

125:  339. 
v.  Wirth,  150  N.  Y.  459:  577. 
Rathoon  v.  White,  16  Colo.  41:  4C8. 
Ratzky  v.   People,   29  N.   Y.   124: 

1182,  1187. 
Raubold  v.  Commonwealth,  21  Ky. 

L.  R.  1125:  199,  301,  468. 
Raudebangh  v.  Shelley,  6  Ohio  St. 

307:  498.  636. 
Rauer  v.  Williams,    118  Cal.   401: 

372,  391. 
Raught  v.  Lewis,  24  Wash.  47:  1213. 
Raverty  v.  Fridge,  3  McLean,  230: 

1229. 
Rawley  v.  Rawley,  12  B.  D.  4C6: 

648. 
Rawlings  v.  Jennings,  13  Ves.  46: 

824. 
Rawlins  v.  Vidvard,  34  Hun,  205: 

1265. 
Rawls  v.  Kennedy,  23  Ala.  240:  671. 
Rawson  v.    Parsons,   6  Mich.  401: 

1121. 
Ray  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

99  Wis.  617:  552. 
Raymond   v.   Sheboygan,   76  Wis. 
335:  1225. 
v.  State,  54  Miss.  562:  1039. 
Raynard  v.  Chase,  1  Burr.  2:  646. 
Raynham  v.  Canton,  3  Pick.  293: 

620. 
Read  v.  Clearfield  Co.,  12  Pa.  Supr. 
Ct.  419:  275,  418. 
v.  Edwards,  17  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  245: 
778. 


Read  v.  Frankfort  Bank,  23  Me.  318: 
18,  1200. 
v.  Levy,  30  Tex.  738:  928. 
v.  Stewart,  129  Mass.  407:  986. 
v.  Storey,  6  H  &  N.  423:  471. 
Reading  v.  Savage,  124  Pa.  St.  328: 
377,  386. 
v.  Shepp,  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  137: 
491,  528,  530. 
Ready  v.  Chamberlin,  52  How.  Pr. 

123:  335. 
Reagan  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  S.  Co.,  154 

U.  S.  302:  579. 
Reals  v.  Smith,  8  Wyo.  159:  4H0. 
Reamer  v.  Morrison  Express  Co.,  93 

Mo.  App.  501:  1018. 
Reavis  v.  Farmers'  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co., 

78  Mo.  App.  14:  766. 
Redell  v.  Moores,  63  Neb.  219:  140, 

606. 
Redmond,  Ex  parte,  3   App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  317:  710,  846. 
Redmond  v.  State,  36  Ark.  58: 1276. 
Red  path  v.  People,  84  I1L  App.  509: 

846. 
Red  Rock  v.  Henry,  106  U.  S.  596: 

463,  466,  516.  529. 
Red  Wing  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

72  Minn.  240:  1031,  1232. 
Reed  v.  Clark,  3  McLean,  480:  123. 
v.  Davis,  8  Pick.  514:  645,  987. 
v.  Dunbar,  41  Ore.  509:  7,  463, 

518. 
v.  Madison,  83  Wis.  171:  1168. 
v.  McCloud,38W.  Va.  701: 1261. 
v.  McCrary.  94  Ga.  487: 128,  249. 
v.  Northfield,  13  Pick.  94:  646, 

986,  991. 
v.  Ownby,  44  Mo.  204:  899. 
v.  Rawson,  2  Litt.  189:  642. 
v.  Rogan,  94  Tex.  177:  399. 
v.  State,  136  Ala.  91:  1313. 
v.  State,  12  Ind.  641 :  205. 
v.  Swan,  133  Mo.  100:  1159, 1191. 


clxxxvi 


fAULl     OF    OASES    CITED. 


m  an  i>>  the  pa     b:  V6L  l.  pp,  1  BOS;  v..i.  u,  pp.  005-1815. 


:  r.  Thompson,  vs  [11.  345:  1267. 

ledo,  IS  Ohio,  161:  L009. 
v.  Wilson,  ii  N.  J.   I..  29:  868. 
v.  Livingston,  B4  Pla  877:  1101. 
perall,  89  Ala.  138:  I 
Reel  I  ''\  ee  I  >ist  v.  I  >aw- 

Bon,  97  Tenn.  151:  160. 

■  v.  W.  r.  T.  Co.,  133  Iml.  394: 

v.  Michigan,  188  U.  S. 

.  Anderson,  18  "Wash.  17: 
134 

v.  Gay.  92  Ga.  309:  440. 

v.  Phila  Traction  Co.,  152  Pa, 

St.  158:  414. 
v.  White,  IT  Q.  B.  995:  1052. 
a  \.  Adamson.L.  R  1  Q.  B.  D. 

201:  1119. 
v.  Allen,  L  R.  1  C.  C.  3G7:   758. 
v.  Arm,!  !.  5   B.  &.  S.  322:  1112. 
v.  Badcock,  6  Q.  B.  787:  789. 
v.  Barclay,  L  R  8  Q.  B.  Div. 

306: 
v.  Bennett,  14  Cox,   C.    C.   45: 

977. 
v.  Bishop.  5  Q.  B.  Div.  259:  976. 
v.  Bishop  of  Oxford,  LE.4Q, 

B.  D.  525:  1119. 
v.  Boteler,  4  B.  &  S.  989:  1149. 
.  Brown,  17  Q.  B.  833:  804. 
v.  Bullock,  L  R  1  C,  C.   117: 

777. 
v.  Buttle,  I*  R.1C.C.  250:  777. 
v.  Cambridgeshire  Justices,   7 

Ad  &  E.  491:  1066,  1067. 
v.  Cliantrell,  L.  R  10  Q.  R  587: 

v.  Charlesworth,  3  Lowndes,  SI. 

&  P.  117:  804 
v.  Cleworth,  4  B.  &  S.  927:  817. 
hen,  8  Cox,  C.  G  41:  977. 
llingwood,  12  Q.    B.   681 : 


Regina    v.   Cumberworth  Half,   5 
Q.  B.  484:  814. 
v.  Cutbush,  L.  R  2  Q.  R  879: 

89a 

v.  Dean,   13  11  &  W.  39:   979, 

1108. 
v.  Doubleday,  3  El.  &  EL  501 : 

839. 
v.  Edmundson,  2  EL  &  EL  77: 

838. 
v.  Edmundson,  28  L.  J.  M.  C. 

215:  814 
v.  Fordham,  11  A.  &  El.  73:  471. 
v.  Frost,  9  C.  &  P.  129:  777,887. 
v.  Gibbons,  12  Cox,  C.  C.  237: 

977. 
v.  Harden,  2  Ellis  &  B.  188:  487. 
v.  Harvey,  L.  R  1  C.  C.  R  284: 

979.1108. 
v.  Haughton,  1  El.  &  Bl.  501: 

058. 
v.  Horton,   11  Cox,  C.   C.  070: 

977. 
v.  Ingall,  L.  R  2  Q.  B.  Div.  199: 

1117. 
v.  Ingham,  5  B.  &  S.  257:  777. 
v.  Inhabitants,  2  Q.  B.  84:  467. 
v.  Ipswich  Union,   2   Q.   B.    D. 

269:  641. 
v.  Justices,  7  Ad.  &  E.  480:  685, 

687. 
v.  Kershaw,  6  E.  &  B.   1007: 

1067. 
v.  Lichfield.  2  Q.  B.  693:  818. 
v.  Llangian,  4  B.  &  S.  249:    188, 

799. 
v.  Mallow  Union,   12  Ir.   C.   L. 

(N.  S.)  35:  641,  649,  708,  911. 

923,  1063. 
v.     Manchester,     etc.     Water- 
works Co.,  1  B.  &  C.  630: 

805 
v.   Mayor,  eta  7  E.  &  B.  910: 

1117. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


clxxxvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-693;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Retina  v.  Mayor  of  Harwich,  8  Ad. 
&  E.  919:  1149. 
v.  Mews,  L.  R.  8  App.  Cas.  339: 

511. 
v.  Mews,  6  Q.  B.  D.  47:  511. 
v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  4  E.  &  B. 

958:  809. 
v.  Moore,  13  Cox.  C.  C.514:  977. 
v.  Most,  L.  R.  7  Q.  B.  D.  251 : 

867. 
v.  O'Brien,  15  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  419: 

977. 
v.  Overseers,  5  B.  &  S.  391:  1155. 
v.  Payne,  L.  R  1  C.  C.  27:  838. 
v.  Pearce,  L.  R.  5  Q.  R  Div.  3S9: 

1065. 
r.  Phillips,  LR.1Q.  B.  648: 

799. 
v.  Pilkington,  2  E.  &  B.  54G: 

1089. 
v.  Pratt,  4  E.  &  B.  860:  759, 778. 
v.  Price,  L.  R.  6Q.  B.  411:  777. 
v.  Prince,  L.  R.  2  C.  C.  R.  154: 

977. 
v.  Scaife,  17  Q.  B.  238:  893. 
v.  Seale,  5  E.  &  B.  1:  921. 
v.  Shiles,  1  Q.  B.  919:  799. 
v.  Skeen,  Bell,  C.  C.  134:  1085. 
v.  Sleep,  L.  &  C.  44:  976,  979, 

1108. 
v.  Smith,  1  L.  &  C.  131 :  683. 
v.  South  Weald,  5  B.  &  S.  391: 

778. 
v.  Spratley,  6  E.  &  B.  363:  730, 

824. 
v.  St.  Luke's,  L.  R.  7  Q.  B.  153: 

1241. 
v.  Stock,  8  Ad.  &  E.  405: 788. 
v.  Stock,  3  Nev.  &  Perry,  420: 

49  3. 
v.  Sykes,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B.  D.  52: 

9S2. 
v.  Tithe  Com'rs,   14  Q.  B.  459: 

1148. 

m 


Regina  v.  Tolson,  40  Alb.  L.  J.  250: 
975. 
v.  Tolson,  L.  R.  23  Q.  B.  Div. 

168:  975,  977. 
v.  Tonbridge  Overseers,  L.  R. 
13  Q.  B.  Div.  342:  854,916. 
v.   Turner,   9  Cox,   C.  C.   145: 

977. 
v.  Vine,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  195:  642, 

643. 
v.  Watford,  9  Q.  B.  635:  929. 
v.  Wilcock,  7  Q.  B.  317:  650. 
v.  Williams,  2  C.  &   K.  1001: 

1149. 
v.  Willmett,  3  Cox,  C.  C.  281: 

977. 
v.  Wood,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  559:  755. 
v.  Wymondhatn,  2  Q.  B.  541: 

1089. 
v.  Youle,  6  H.  &  N.  753:  481. 
v,  Zuluetta,  1  C.  &  K.  215:  884. 
Registration  of  Campbell,  In  re,  197 

Pa.  St.  501:  430. 
Relioboth  v.    Hunt,   1    Pick.   224: 

1192. 
Reiche   v.  Smythe,   13   Walk  162: 

664,  665,  714,  810. 
Reid  v.  Colorado.  187  U.  S.  137:  134 
v.  Morlai,  119  111.  118:  583. 
v.  Panska,  56  Neb.  195:  434, 
v.  Smoulter,  128  Pa.  St.  324: 442. 
v.  State,  20  Ga.  681:  642. 
v.  Strider,  7  Gratt.  76:  19. 
v.  Sui  ervisors,    60     Hun,    215: 
1283. 
Reighart  v.  Harris,   6  Kan.  App. 

339:  885. 
Reilly  v.  Gray,  77  Hun,  402:  429. 
Reimer  v.  Newel,  47  Minn.  237:  579. 
Reinhardt   v.   Fritzache,   69   Hun, 

565:  467. 
Reis  v.  Graff.  51  Cal.  86:  635,  641. 
B        r  v.  Wni.  Tell,  etc.  Ass'n,  39 
Pa.  St.  147:  14,  19,  635. 


Will 


l  \r.i  1.   OF   OASES   CITED. 


to  tiu<  pages:  Vol  1  pp,  I  808;  Vol  n.  pp,  806  1818. 


Baithmilli  rr.l  I  Mioh.880: 

781.  1071. 

romahawk  Paper  &  Pulp 
Wis.  801:  1883,  1284, 1385. 

Reraillard  \.  Blaokman,  49  Minn. 
344. 

Remington  v.  Higgins,  6  S.  D.  313: 

Ore  881:  970. 
Remsen'a  Petition,   59  Barb.  317: 

Renackowsky  v.  Water  I  <  •m'rs,  102 
Mich.  613:  112. 

Renfroe  v.  Colquitt.  74  Ga  019:  963, 

967. 
Renfrow,  Ex  parte.  112  Mo.  591:  86, 

12a 
Renick  v.  Boyd,  99  Pa.  St.  555:  820. 
Renner  v.  Bennett,  21  Ohio  St.  431 : 

670. 
Reno  S.  M.  &  R.  Works  v.  Steven- 
son, 20  Nev.  269:  31. 
Rensselaer,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 

43  X.  Y.  137:  1041. 
Renter  v.  Bauer.  3  Kan.  505:  56a 
Renwick  v.  Morris,  3  Hill,  621:  636, 
1057. 
v.  Morris,  7  Hill,  575:  1057. 
Report  of  County  Auditors,  In  re, 

1  Woodw.  270:  932. 
Requa  v.  Graham,  187  I1L  67:  781. 
v.  Graham,  86  111.  A  pp.  566:  784. 
r  v.  Wm.  Tell  S.  F.  Ass'n,  39 
Pa.  St.  147:  3. 

ublica  v.  Mesca,  1  Dall.  73:  31. 

v.  Sparhawk,  1  Dall.  357:  1019. 

Restall   v.   London,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  L. 

l;.  3  Ex.  141:  515. 
Rex  v.  Abbot,  2  Drug.  553:  1052. 
v.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 

11  Q.  B.  665:  74a 
v.  Punks,  1  Esp.  144:  977. 
v.  Banbury,   1    Ad.   &   K   142: 
701,  i 


Rex  v.  Barbara,  8  P.  &  C.  99:  9 in. 

v.  Barlow,    2    Salic.   609:    1147, 

1 1  111. 
v.  Bond,  1  B.  &  Aid.  892:  96ft 
v.  Bristol  Dock  Co.,  6  B.  &  C. 

191:  841. 
v.  Bug^s,  Skin.  428:  625,  633. 
v.  Bullock,  1  Taunt.  80:  717. 
v.  Cator,  4  Burr.  2026:    181. 
v.  Corn  forth,  2  Str.  1162:  710. 
v.  Cowell,   2    East,   P.    C.  617: 

809. 
v.  Cunningham,   5    East.    478: 

809. 
v.  Davis,  1  Leach,  271:  4*2,  555. 
v.  Denbyshire,  I  East,142: 1117. 
v.  Dorsetshire,    15    East.    200: 

914. 
v.  Downs,  3  T.  R,  569:  482. 
v.  Elkins,  4  Burr.  2130:  336. 
v.  Great  Driffield  Inhabitants, 

8  B.  &  C.  690:  892. 
v.  Handy,  6  T.  R.  286:  963. 
v.  Havering  Atte  Bower,  5  B. 

&  Aid.  091:   1147. 
v.  Heath,  2    East.  P.   C.    609: 

555. 
v.  Hodnett.  1  T.  R.  96:  C95. 
v.  Hogg,  IT.  R.  721:  888. 
v.  Hymen,  7  T.  R.  536:  970. 
v.  Inhabitants,  1  T.  R  96:  711. 
v.  Inhabitants  of  Shipton,  8  B. 

&C.  94:  795. » 
v.  Jefferies,  1  Strange,  446:  123. 
v.  Justices,  2  B.  &  Ad.  81S:  310, 

669. 
v.  Justices,  4    B.   &  Ad.   238: 

1149. 
v.  Justices,  3  Burr.   1456:  554, 

678. 
v.  Justices,  4  Nev.  &  M.  378: 

329,  331. 
v.  Leek  Wool  ton,  16  East,  122: 

887. 


TABLE   OF    CASES   CITED. 


clxxxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  1,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Rex  v 
v. 


Leicester,  7  B.  &  C.  6:  1117. 
Leicester,  9D.&R  772:  471. 
.  Liverpool,  4  Burr.  2244:  1009. 
.  Loom,  1  Mro.  C.  C.  160:  809. 
.  Luffe,  8  East,  193:  878,  1089. 
.  Manchester  &  S.  W.  Works,  1 

B.  &C.  630:  833. 
.  Marks,  3  East,*  160:  655. 
.  Mashita,  6  Ad.  &  E.  153:  865. 
.  Mayor  of  London,  9  B.  &  C. 

27:  1052. 
.  McKenzie,  R.  &  R.  C.  C.  429: 

484,  555. 
,  Middlesex,  2  B.  &  Ad.  818: 

457,  542. 
Middlesex,  1  Dow.  P.  C.  117: 

463. 
Midland  Ry.  Co.,   L.   R.  10 

Q.  B.  389:  666. 
Morgan,  Str.  1066:  456. 
Mortlake,  6  East,  397:  797. 
Newark-upon-Trent,  3  B.  &  C. 

71:  673. 
Newcomb,  4  T.  R.  368:  471, 

637. 
Northleach  &  W.  Road,  5  B. 

&  Ad.  978:  473,  490,  492. 
Palmer,   Leach    C.   C.  352: 

845. 
Poor  Law  Com'r,  6  A.  &  E. 

17:  699,702,  705,758,  916. 
Ramsgate,  6  B.  &  C.  712:  916. 
Robinson,  2  Burr.  803:  917. 
Rogers,  10  East,  573:  459. 
Sadi,  1  Leach,  C.  C.  468:  861. 
Sedgley,  2  B.  &  Ad.  65:  809. 
Shrewsbury,  3  B.  &  Ad.  216: 

833. 
Simpson,  1  Str.  45:  863. 
Sparrow,  2  Str.  1123:  1117. 
St.     George's     Hannover 

Square,  3  Camp.  222:  636. 
Stoke  Damerel,  7   B.  &   C. 

570:  843. 


&   E. 


512. 
630, 


Rex  v.  St.  Peter  &  St.  Paul  in  B„  1 
Bott.  443:  654. 
v.  Sutton,  4  M.  &  S.  532:  658. 
v.  Swiney,    Alcock   &   Napier, 

131:  456. 
v.  Taunton  St.  James,  9  B.  &  C. 

831:  671. 
v.  Trustees,   etc.,  5  Ad. 

563:  967. 
v.  Wallis,  5  T.  R  375:  818. 
v.  Wells,  4  Dowe.  562:  461. 
v.  Whiteley,  3H.&N.  143: 
v.  Williams,  1  W.  Bl.  93: 

648,  1075. 
v.  Woodrow,  15  M.  &  W.  404: 

979. 
v.  Worcestershire,  5  M.   &  S. 

457:  638. 
v.  Wright,   1   Ad.   &  El.   437: 

931. 
v.  Yorkshire,  1  Doug.  192:  914. 
v.  Younger,  5  T.  R.  452:  892. 
Rex  Lumber  Co.  v.  Reed,  107  Iowa, 

111:  203,  289. 
Rexroth  v.  Schein,  206  111.  80:  1290. 
Reymond  v.  Newcomb,  10  N.  M.  151 : 

7S4. 
Reynolds,  Ex  parte,  87  Ala.    138: 

238. 
Reynolds  v.  Blue,  47  Ala.  711:  120. 
v.  Board  of  Education,  66  Kan. 

672:  299,  436,  510. 
v.  Commonwealth,  93  Pa.   St. 

458:  1298. 
v.  Haines,  83  Iowa,  342:   1260. 
v.    Holland,   35   Ark.   56:    666, 

693,  705,  729. 
v.  Niagara  Falls,  81  Hun,  353: 

528. 
v.  Oneida  Co.,  6  Idaho,  787: 157. 
v.  Or  vis,  7  Cow.  269:  922,  1045, 

1046. 
v.  Robinson,  64  N.  Y.  589:  1062, 
1294. 


cxo 


TABLE    OF    0A81  3    i'l  I'KD. 


an  \'i'i.  i.  pp.  1  BOB;  Vci.  n,  pp.  «x»5- isis. 


v  -i  .t,>.  1  Ga.  328:  641. 
\    -  \,-h.  761:  484 

36  T.-nn.  58:  L076. 
.:.-.  83  Neb.  461:  469,  786, 

K.  EL  Herron  Co.   v.   Bupr.   Court, 

v,  50  Ind  858: 
881. 
Rhoads  v,   Hoesnerstown   B.,  etc. 

A  531. 

Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  170  U.  S.  412:  707, 
711,721,  722. 
-  aethurst,   4  M.  &  W.  42: 

127a 

v.  Weldey,  46  Ohio  St.  334,  30 
N.  K.  461:  75a 

Rhone   v.    Loomis,   74  Minn.    200: 

815, 
Ricard  v.  Smith,  37  Miss.  644: 

v.  Williams,  7  Wheat  59:  'Jin. 
Rice  v.  Ashland  Co.,  108  Wis.  189: 
'.'14. 
v.  Carmichael,  4  Colo.  App.  84: 

1254. 
v.    Colorado  Smelting   Co.,  28 

Colo.  519:  437. 
v.  Commonwealth,  22  Ky.  L.  R, 

1793:  56a 
v.  Daman.  57  Ark.  541:  774. 
v.  Foster,  4  Harr.  479:   145, 172. 
v.  Goodwin,  2  Colo.  App.  267: 

v.  II..>kin^,  105  Mich.  303:  301, 

417. 
v.    Kirkman,   3    Humph.   415: 

v.  McCaully.  7  Iloust.  226:  559. 
v.  Montgomery,  1  Biss,  75:  879. 
v.  Parkman,  16  Mass.  826:  626. 
v.  I:  >.,  1  Black.  858: 

•    710,  724,  861. 
864,  10.".'.  1028,  1025. 
v.  Rj  .-.  104  Mich.  871:  1295. 


Rice  v.  Ruddiman,  10  Midi.  125: 

818,  5ii. 

v.  Shook,  87  Ark.  137:  871. 

v.  Wright.  46  Miss,  079:  5511. 

Rice's  Succession,  21  La.  Ann.  614: 

606. 
Rich  v.  Chicago,  50  111.  287:  1189. 
v.  Chicago,  152  111.  18:  KIT. 
v.  Flanders,  39  N.  II.  301:  641, 

927. 
v.  Keyser,  54 Pa  St.  S6:  759,  ?7& 
v.  People,  152  111.  18:  406. 
v.  Rayle,  2  Humph.  404:  920. 
Richard   v.  Stark  County,  8  N.  D. 

392:  290. 
Richards  v.  l'.dlingham  B.  L.  Co.,54 
Fed.  209:  286. 
v.  Dagget,  4  Mass.  537:  911. 
v.  Dyke,  3  Q.  B.  25G:  1052. 
v.  Emswiler,  14  La.  Ann.  658: 

Kill. 
v.  McEride,  L  R.  8  Q.  B.  Div. 

119:  605,  793,  799. 
v.  Richards,  76  N.  Y.  188:  251, 

252. 
v.  Rote,  68  Pa  St.  248:  1233. 
Richardson,  In  re,  2  Story,  571:  308. 
Richardson,  Matter  of,  2  Story,  571: 

320,  321. 
Richardson   v.   Crandall,  48  N.  Y. 
350:  926. 
v.  Fletcher,  74  Vt.  417:  1227. 
v.  Mass.  Charitable  Ass'n,  131 

Mass.  174:  1037. 
v.  Norfolk  &  W.  Ry.  Co.,  37  W. 

Va.  641:  1110,  1254. 
v.  Pulver,  63  Barb.  67:  9;0. 
v.    Richardson,    6    Ohio,    125: 

1279. 
v.  St.  Albans,  72  Vt.  1:  1002. 
v.  U.  S.  M.  &  S.  Co.,  194  111.  259: 

115^  1191,  1200,  1206. 
v.  U.  S.  Mortgage  &  T.  Co.,  89 
111.  App.  679:  1191. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXC1 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Richland  Co.  v.  Richland  Center, 

69  Wis.  591:  1194. 
Richman  v.  Muscatine  Co.  Sup'rs, 
77  Iowa,  513:  248,  340,  1230,  1232, 
1237. 
Richmond  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
87  Mich.  374:  1293. 
v.  Shickler,  57  Iowa,  486:  1273. 
v.  Smith,  15  Wall.  429:  615. 
v.  Supervisors,  83  Va.  204:  765, 
S83. 
Richmond  R.  R  Co.  v.  Louisa  R.  R. 
Co.,  13  How.  71:  548,  1022,  1035. 
Richter  v.  Bohnsack,  144  Mo.  516: 
1261. 
v.  Merrill,  84  Mo.  App.  150 :  1002. 
v.  Prillon,  173  N.  Y.  67:  741. 
Ricketson   v.  Richardson,  £6  Cal. 

149:  1010. 
Rico  Reduction  &  Min.  Co.  v.  Mus- 

grave,  14  Colo.  79:  1258. 
Ridge  Ave.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

124  Pa.  St.  219:  223. 
Ridgefield  Park,  In  re,  54  N.  J.  L. 

288:  6,  7. 
Ridgeway  v.  Gallatin  Co.,  181  111. 

521:  511,527,529. 
Ridout  v.  Pain,  3  Atk.  493:  669. 
Rieker  v.  Danville,  204  111.  191:  1306. 
Riggin  v.  Collier,  6  Mo.  568:  880. 
Riggins  v.  State,  4  Kan.  173:  642, 

1228. 
Riggs  v.  Brewer,  64  Ala.  282:  462. 
638. 
v.  Martin,  5  Ark.  506:  18. 
v.  Palmer,  115  N.  Y.  506:  694, 
742. 
Right  v.  Martin,  11  Ind.  123:  547. 
Rigney  v.  Plaster,  88  Fed.  686:  694, 

713,  722.. 
Rigoney  v.  Neiman,  73  Pa.  St.  330: 

756. 
Riley  v.  Garfield  Tp.,  54  Kan.  463: 
1030. 


Rio  Grand  lrr.  &  Col.  Co.  v.  Cilder- 

sleeve,  9  N.  M.  12:  1027. 
Ripley  v.  Evans,  87  Mich.  217:  199, 

262,  416. 
Ripple  v.  Ripple,  1  Rawle,  386:  869. 
Risewick  v.  Davis,  19  Md.  82:  308, 

1048,  1049. 
Rison  v.  Farr,  24  Ark.  161:  1206. 
Ritchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98:  191, 
203,  223,  578,  582,  597. 
v.  Richards,  14  Utah,  345:  73, 
86,  286. 
Rivers  v.  Cole,  38  Iowa,  677:  642, 

1226. 
River  Wear  Com'rs  v.  Adamson,  L. 
R.  2  Ap.  Cas.  743:  911. 
v.  Adamson,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B.  D. 
546:  884. 
Rives  v.  Guthrie,  1  Jones'  L.  88: 

757. 
Rixhe  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

96  Mo.  App.  406:  21,  952,  965. 
Roach,  Ex  parte,  104  Cal.  272:  1028, 

1032. 
Road  in  Green  &  G.  Tps.,  21  Pa, 

Supr.  Ct.  418:  470. 
Roane  v.  Innis,  Wythe  (Va.),  62: 

1242. 
Roane  Iron  Co.  v.  Wisconsin  Trust 

Co.,  99  Wis.  273:  430. 
Robb  v.  Gurney,  2  Rich.  (N.  S.)  559: 

511. 
Robbins  v.  State,  8  Ohio  St.  131:  528, 

530. 
Roberg,  Matter  of,  18  Ohio  C.  C. 

367:  407. 
Roberg's  Assignment,  18  Ohio  C.  C. 

367:  458. 
Roberts,  Ex  parte,  166  Mo.  207:  13, 

132. 
Roberts,  In  re,  5  Colo.  525:  72,  75, 

84,  85,  96. 
Roberts  v.  Brooks,  78  Fed.  411:  304. 
v.  Cain,  97  Ky.  722:  6. 


1'AliI.K    OV    CAM  S    CITED. 


The  ratorenoei  !iri>  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-003;  vol.  II,  pp.  Gus-isis. 


\   Cannon,  4  Dev.  &  Bat 

L  887:  iu;j. 

hen, 80  app.  Div.  259: 1191. 
v.  Detroit,  108  Mich.  64:  815, 
v.  Fargo,  10  N.  D.  230:  1145. 
v.  Fire!  Nat  Bank,  8  N.  D.  504: 

1 808. 
v.  Fowler,  3  E.  D.  Smith,  632: 

1055,  1954 
v.  Haokney,  109  Ky.  265:  6,  10. 
v.  Missouri,    etc.    Ry.    Co.,    43 

Kan.  102:  487. 
v.  State,  30  A  pp.  Div.  106:  19. 
v.  State,  2  Overt  423:  554. 
v.  Yarboro,  41  Tex.  449:  674, 677, 

92a 

rtson  v.  Demoss,  23  Miss.  298: 

45ft 
v.  I. and  Commissioner,  44 Mich. 

274:  1192. 
v.  People,  20  Colo.  279:  72,  130. 
v.  Preston,  97  Va  296:  595. 
v.  Robertson.  100  Ky.  696:  703. 
v.  State,  130  Ala.  164:  71.  78,  96. 
v.  State,  12  Tex.  App.  541:  435, 
a  toerts'  Will,  8  Paige,  446:  620. 
Robey  v.  Prince  George's  Co.,  82 

Md.  150:  6,9. 
Robinina  v.  State,  63  Ind.  235:  1276. 
Robinson,   Ex    parte,   28  Tex.   Ct. 

App.  511:  071,  796. 
Robinson  v.  Belt,  2  Ind.  Ter.  360: 
785. 
v.  Belt,  187  U.  S.  41:  785. 
v.  Bidwell,  22  Cal.  379:  582,  601. 
v.  Canadian  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  (1892), 

A.  C.  48!: 
v.  Dauchy,  3  Barb.  20:  611. 
v.  Emerson,  4  H.  &  C.  355:  484 
v.  Pair.  128  U.  S.  53:  1058. 
v.  Ferguson,    119     Iowa,    325: 

1227. 
v.  Foster,  18  Iowa,  186:  330. 
r.  Grilman,  20  Me.  299:  618. 


Robinson  v.  Goldsboro,  122  N.  C. 
211:  684, 
v.  Howe,  13  Wis.  841:  1210. 
v.  Lane.  19  Ga.  837:  23a 
v.  People,  23  Colo.  123:  965. 
v.  Perry,  17  Kan.  248:  422. 
v.  Schmidt,  48  Tex.    13:   1049, 

1C50. 
v.  Skipworth,  23  Ind.  311:  185, 

254. 
v.  State,  59  Ark.  341:974. 
v.  State,  15  Tex.  311:  92a 
v.  Varnell,  16  Tex.  382:  664,  756, 

911. 
v.  Waddington,  13  Ad.  &  El. 
(N.  S.)  753:  329. 
Robinson's  Case,  131  Mass.  376:  910, 

1312. 
Robison  v.  Miner,  68  Mich.  549:  197. 
Roby  v.  Shepard,  42  W.  Va,  286:  86, 

129,  232,  242,  451. 
Roche  v.  Jersey  City,  40  N.  J,  L. 
257,  518. 
v.  Mayor,  40  N.  J.  L.  257:  638. 
v.  Waters,  72  Md.  264:  19. 
Rochester,  Matter  of,  77  App.  Div. 

28:  268,  290. 
Rochester  v.  Barnes,  26  Barb.  657: 
473. 
v.  Campbell,  123  N.  Y.  405:  917, 
1311. 
Rochester,  etc.  W.  Co.  v.  Rochester, 

84  App.  Div.  71:  1194 
Rockhill  v.  Nelson,  24  Ind.  422:  900. 
Rock  Hill  College  v.  Jones,  47  Md. 

1:  517. 
Rockhold  v.  Blevins,  6  Baxt.  115: 
37. 
v.  Canton  Masonic  Mut.  Ben. 
Soc.  129  111.  440:  846,  1065. 
Rock  Island  Nat.   Bank  v.  Thomp- 
son, 173  111.  593:  1158,1164. 
v.  Thompson,  74  111.   App.   54: 
1158,  1104. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXC111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Rockwell  v.  Clark,  44  Conn.  534: 
640. 
v.  Hubbell,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  197: 
1201,  1226. 
Roddam  v.  Morley,  1  De  G.  &  J.  1: 

1015. 
Roddy  v.  Brooklyn  City,  eta  R.  R. 

Co.  22  App.  Div.  311:  1159. 
Rode  v.  Phelps,  80  Mich.  598:  87. 

v.  Siebe,  119  Cal.  518:  423. 
Rodebaugh  v.  Phila.  Trac.  Co.,  190 
Pa.  St,  358:  229,  250,  508,  699,  703, 
12S3. 
Rodgers  v.  Morrill,  55  Kan.  737:  280. 
v.  United  States,  185  U.  S.  83: 
515,  529. 
Rodger's  Petition,  192  Pa.  St.  97: 

231. 
Rodman  v.  Washington,  122  N.  C. 

39:  92. 
Rodman-Heath     Cotton    Mills    v. 
Waxhaw,  130  N.  C.  293:  83,  176, 
603. 
Roe  v.  Ferrars,  2B.&P.  547:  1016. 

v.  Hersey,  3  Wils.  275:  308. 
RofT  v.  Johnson,  40  Ga.  555:  854. 
Rogers,  Ex  parte,  7  Cow.  526:  1046. 
Rogers  v.  Goodwin,   2  Mass.   475: 
893,  894,  899. 
v.  Hill  house,  3  Conn.  398:  1282. 
v.  Jacob,  88  Ky.  502:  199,  286, 

743,  1290. 
v.  Kennard,  54  Tex.  30:  920. 
v.  Kneeland.lOWend.  218:  933. 
v.  Lynch,  44  W.  Va.  94:  1160, 

1165,  1295. 
v.  Murray,  3  Paige,  390:  1137. 
v.    Nashville,  etc.  Ry.   Co.,  91 

Fed.  299:  519. 
v.    Rogers,   3   Wend.   503:  6C0, 

666. 
v.  State.  6  Ala.  31:  432. 
v.  State,  6Ind.  31:  432. 
v.  Stephens,  86  N.  Y.  623:  290. 


Rogers  v.  Trumbull,  32  Wash,  211: 
1225. 
v.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  10  Misc.  57: 

290. 
v.  Vass,  6  Iowa,  405:  325,  673. 
v.  Watrous,  8  Tex.  62:  515,  516. 
v.  Win  does,  48  Mich.  628:  189. 
Rogers'  Case,  2  Greenlf.  303:  625, 

626. 
Rogers-Ruger  Co.  v.  Murray,   115 

Wis.  267:  136. 
Rohrbacker  v.   Jackson,   51    Miss. 

735:  47,  702. 
Roland  Park  Co.  v.  State,  80  Md. 

448:  649,  694,  726,  773,  885,  909. 
Roles  v.  Rose  well,  5T.  R,  538:  1149. 
Rolfe    v.   McComb,   2    Head,  558: 

610. 
Rolland  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Pa, 

St.  306:  757,  797. 
Rolle  v.  Whyte,  L.  R.  32  B.  305:  778. 
Rollins  v.  Wright,  93  Cal.  395:  1208. 
Romaine  v.  Kinshiner,  2  Hilt.  519: 

899. 
Rood  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  43 
Wis.  146:  555. 
v.  McCargar,  49  CaL  117:  583, 
595. 
Roose  v.  Perkins,  9  Neb.  304:  1265, 

1268,  1269. 
Roosevelt  v.  Godard,  52  Barb.  533: 
927,  928. 
v.  Maxwell,  3  Blatchf.  391:  755. 
Root  v.  Smnock,  24  111.  App.  537: 

731. 
Rose  v.  Beaver  Co..  204  Pa.  St.  372: 
171,  303,  408. 
v.  Rose,  104  Ky.  48:  1220,  1294. 
v.  Wortham,  95  Tenn.  505:  694, 
717,  721,  722,  733. 
Rosecrants  v.  Shoemaker,  60  Mich. 

4:  1269. 
Rose  Hill  I.  &  C.  Co.  v.  Fulton  Co., 
204  Pa.  St.  44:  303. 


r  \iw.i:   01    0  18ES   OITED. 


Vol  I,  pp,  i  608;  Vo\,  li.  pp.  I 


He  v.   Harmon,   103  Mo. 

:  v.   Frank,  58  Cal.  387: 

nberger  v.  Bfallerson,  98  Ma 
A  pp.  87:  847,  857. 

abloom  v.  State,  04  Neb.  848: 
198,  \:\ 

ns  v.   Unite!   States.  165 
r.  s.  857:  1059. 
Rosenfield  v.  Bwarte,  88  R  I.  815: 

nplaenter  v.  Roessle,  54  N.  Y. 

i:  38  v.  Aguirre,  191  U.  S.  00:  239. 
v.  Anstil!,  8  Cal.  183:  872. 

r'  ml.  1  Pet  655:  1848. 
v.  Boswell,  60  Ind.  335:  870. 
v.  Davis,  97   Ind.  79:  808 

854 
v.  Duval.  13  Pet.  45:   146,  1386. 
v.  Jones.  88  Wall.  570:  1010. 
v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

Ill  Mo.  18:  889. 
v.  M'Lung,  0  Pet.  283:  616. 
v.  New  Eng.  M.  S.  Co.,  101  Ala. 

362: 
v.  Passaic  City,  64  N.  J.  L.  488: 

v.  Reddick.9  111.  73:624. 

v.  Supervisors,  12  Wis.  20:882. 
v.  Winsor,  48  N.  J.  L.  95:  378. 

.'  Pick.  1G5:  1185. 
•  v.  St.  Paul  &  Duluth  Ry.  Co., 
Minn.  210:  809,906. 
Rothv.Gabbert,  ISSMaSl:  707,745. 
v.  State.  7  Ohio  C.  C.  62:  1297. 
v.  State,  51  Ohio  St.  209:  1297. 
!        rle,  186  Pa.  St. 
850:  579,  580 

..  rher  v.  Dupuy,  04  III.  458: 
1018,  1055,  12.J4. 
Bothshield   r.  New  York  Life  Ins. 
Co.,  97  III.  App.  547:  749,  1153. 


Rottenberry  v.  Pipes,  58  Ala.  447: 

!    613. 

Routultree,  Ex  parte,  51  Ala.  25: 

781. 
Rouse,  Hazard  &  Co.,  In  re,  91  Fed. 

90:  515,  588,  745. 
Rowan    v.    Runnels,  5  IIow.    134: 

•.Mir,. 

Rowa,  The,  7  Prob.  Div.  247:  814. 
Rowberry  v.  Morgan,  9  Exch.  730: 

885. 
Rowe  v.  Hibernia  S.  &  L.  Soc,  134 

Cal.  403:  508. 
Rowell   v.  Janorin,  151   N.  Y.  60: 

671. 
Rowels  v.  State,  39  Neb.  659:  434. 
Rowley  v.  Stray,  32  Mich.  70:  910, 

1072. 
Roy  v.  Henderson,    132  Ala.    175: 

527. 
Royle  v.  Hamilton,  4  Yes.  437:  761. 
Ruan  St.  Opening,  132  Pa.  St.  257: 

381,  388. 
Ruckerfc  v.  Grand  Ave.  Ry.  Co.  163 

Mo.  260:  124,  605,  751,  704,  815. 
Ruckmaboye   v.   Lulloobhoy    Mat- 

tichand,  8  Moore  P.  C.  4:  75a 
Ruckman  v.  Ransom,  35  N.  J.  L. 

565:  498. 
Rudclerow  v.  State,  31  N.  J.  L.  513: 

095. 
Ruddy's  Goods,  L.  R,  2  P.  &  D.330: 

1093. 
Rude  v.  Mitchell,  97  Mo.  365:1056. 
Rue  v.   Alter,  5  Denio,  119:    862, 

1002,  1005. 
Ruffin,  Ex  parte,  119  Cal.  487:   453. 
Ruffner  v.  Hamilton  Co.,  1  Disvey, 

39:  463. 
Ruggles   v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  526: 
695,    711,     864,     884,     885, 
103.-,. 
v.  Washington  Co.,  3  Mo.  49G: 
660,  711. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXCV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  8^5-1315. 


Rumsey  v.  New  York,  etc.  R  R 

Co.,  130  N.  Y.  88:  62,  131. 

v.  People,  19  N.  Y.  48:  605,  608. 

v.  Territory,  3  Wash.  Ter.  332: 

242. 

Rundlett  v.  St  Paul,  64  Minn.  223: 

442,  518. 
Ruolis  v.  Athens,  91  Tenn.  20:  565, 

566. 
Ruschenberg  v.  Southern  Eleo.  R 

R  Co.,  181  Mo.  70:  52S. 
Rushing  t.  Sebree,  12  Bush,  198: 

252. 

Rushville  v.  Rushville,  32  III.  App. 

320:  527. 

v.  Rushville  Natural  Gas  Co., 

132  Ind.  575:  651,  929,  1024. 

Rushville  Gas  Co.  v.  Rushville,  121 

Ind.  206:  199,  300. 
Russel  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  2  Denio,  461, 
1019. 
v.  Transylvania  University,  1 
Wheat.  432:  1046. 
Russell  v.  Akeley  Lumber  Co.,  45 
Minn.  371:  1283,  1285, 1237. 
v.  Cage,  66  Tex.  428:  1030. 
v.  Farquhar,  55  Tex.  359:  695, 

712,  730,  1103. 
v.  Juby,  13  Ala.  131:  105a 
v.  Martin,  15  Tex.  238:  880. 
v.  Wheeler,  Hempst.  3:    1048, 
1249,  1305. 
Rustad  v.   Bishop,  80  Minn.  497: 

1258. 
Rutgers  v.  New  Brunswick,  42  N. 

J.  1*51:  368,  377. 
Ruther  v.  Harris,  I*  R.  1  Ex.  Div. 

97:  794. 
Rutherford  v.   Greene,   2  Wheat. 
196:  643. 
v.  Green's  Heirs,  2  Wheat.  196: 

795. 
v.  Hamilton,  97   Mo.  543:  369, 
376,  386,  389. 


Rutherford  v.  Heddens,  82  Mo.  358: 
376,  389,  401. 
v.  Maynes,  97  Pa.  St.  78:  1045. 
v.  Swink,  96  Tenn.  564:  558. 
Rutland   v.   Mendon,  1   Tick.  154: 

759,  930. 
Ryalls    v.    Mechanics    Mills,    150 

Mass.  190:  784,  860,  861. 
Ryan,  In  re,  20  Mont.  64:  225. 
Ryan,  In  re,  80  Wis.  414:  100,  126. 
Ryan  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co., 
101  Wis.   506:    1161,   1168, 
1217. 
v.  Commonwealth,  80  Va.  385: 

1051.  1160. 
v.  Couch,  66  Ala.  244:  860. 
v.  Johnson,  5  Cal.  86:  351. 
v.  Lynch,  68  111.  160:  72,  87,91, 

605. 
v.  Maxey,  14  Mont.  81:  1159. 
v.  Outagamie  Co.,  80  Wis.  336: 

158. 
v.  State,  5  Neb.  276:  668. 
v.  State,  32  Tex.  280:  645. 
v.  Terminal  Co.,  102  Tenn.  Ill: 
200,  260. 
Ryans    v.   Boogher,   169  Mo.   673; 

1283. 
Ryan's  Case,  45  Mich.  173:  466. 
Ryder  v.  Cohn.  37  Cal.  69:  37. 
Ryegate  v.  Wardsboro,  30  Vt.  746: 

660,  704,  709. 
Ryers,    Matter    of,    72    N.    Y.    1: 

577. 
Ryerson  v.  Laketon,  52  Mich.  509: 
1009. 
v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  269:  185, 190, 
199,  202,  205,  204,  256. 
Ryle  v.  Wilkinson  Co.,  104  Ga.  473: 

434. 
Rymer  v.  Luzerne  Co.,  142  Pa.  St. 

108:  530,  537. 
Ryno  v.   State,   58   N.   J.   L.    238: 
292. 


TABLE    OF    0  M>   CITED. 


Tin-  rafarenoca  are  to  tlio  pages:  Vol.  1,  pp.  1-806;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005  1315. 


s. 

n  t.  Andenon,  31   Ore.  487: 

v.  Curtis,  B  Idaho,  869:  134. 
.  no   I  la   v.  Bancroft,  16 
Civ.  App.  170:  108a 
ria  \    Eureka,  etc.  R,  R.  Co., 
NVv.  [55:  S79. 
B         \.  De  Graaf,  1  Cow.  856:  645, 

it  v.  Saokett,  S  Pick.  309:  29, 
31.  610. 
Saokett,  etc.  Sta,  Matter  of,  74  N. 
Y.  :  14,  247,  854,  .".77,  581. 

t  v.  Supervisors,  79  Mich. 
.  112, 
v  Gurney,  31  Me.  14:  55 
imento  v.  Bird,  15  Cal.  294: 

r  v.  Langliam,  34  Ala.  311: 

Safe  Deposit  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Frucke, 
152  Pa  St.  231:  884,528,538. 

Sage  v.  Brooklyn,  89  N.  Y.  189:  916. 
Saginaw  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Saginaw, 

529:  1023,10-29. 
St  Charles  v.  Hack  man,  133  Mo. 
634:  694,  964. 
v.  Nolle,  51  Mo.  122:  1009,  1010. 
St.  Croix  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mitchell, 
6  Dale  215:  1225,  1257. 

ross  v.  Howard,  6  T.  R.  338: 

.  Rockland,  89  Me.  43: 
780. 

h  v.  Landis,  54  Mo.  App. 
315:  1010. 

awrence,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lett. 
A  in.  &  Eng.  R,  R.  Cas.  454: 

St.  Louis  v.  Alexander,  23  Mo.  500: 

v.  Dorr,  145  Ma  40G:  .375. 


St   Louis  v.  Goebel,  32  Mo.   295. 
974 
v.  Green,  7  Mo.  App.  468:  215, 

222 
V.Howard,  119  Mo.  41:  1032. 
v.  Laughlin,  49  Mo.  559:  823, 

1009,  1010. 
v.  R  J.  Gunning  Co.,  138  Ma 

347:  768,  789,  790. 
v.  Shields,  62  Mo.  247:  339. 
v.  Teifel.  42  Mo.   578:  185,  190,. 
202.  207,  221,  231. 
St  Louis  Co.  Ct.  v.  Sparks,  10  Mo. 

117:   1117. 
St  Louis  Dalles  Imp.  Co.  v.  Nelson 
Lumber  Co.,  43  Minn.  130:  140, 
141. 
St  Louis,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Berry,  41 
Ark.  509:  1002. 
v.  Clark,  53  Mo.  214:  701. 
v.  Fowler,   142  Mo.  670:  007. 
v.  Gill,  51  Ark.  101:   126. 
v.  Gracey,  126  Mo.  472:  694,  695. 
v.  Loftin,  98  U.  S.  559:  1002. 
v.  Paul,  64  Ark.  83:  446. 
v.  Southwestern  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co., 

121  Fed.  276:  455. 
v.  Wilder,  17  Kan.  244:  1134. 
St  Louis  G.  L.  Co.  v.  American  F. 

Ins.  Co.,  33  Mo.  App.  348:  877. 
St.  Louis  Loan  &  Invest  Co.,  In  re, 

194  111.  609:  300. 
St  Louis  National  Bank  v.  Hoff- 
man. 74  Mo.  App.  203:  784,  785. 
St  Louis  River  Dalles  Imp.  Co.  v. 
Nelson  Lumber  Co.,  51  Minn.  10: 
1013,  1058. 
St.  Martin  v.  New  Orleans,  14  La. 

Ann.  113:  662. 
St.  Paul  v.  Colter,  12  Minn.  50:  205. 
v.  Johnson,  69  Minn.  184:  921. 
v.  Lewis,  4  Watts,  402:  888. 
St.  Paul,  etc.  R.  R,  Co.  v.  Green- 
halgh,  26  Fed.  563:  1026. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXCV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


St.  Paul,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  In  re,  34  Minn. 

227:  1041. 
St.  Paul,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  26 
Fed.  Rep.  569:  1025,  1049. 
v.  Phelps,  137  U.  S.  528:  891. 
Salem  Tp.  Road,  103  Pa.  St.  250: 

1136. 
Sales  v.  Barber  Asphalt  Pav,  Co., 

166  Mo.  671:  56*,  846,  860,  922. 
Salisbury  v.  Lane,  7  Idaho,  370:  999, 

1003. 
Salkeld  v.  Johnson,  2  C.  B.  758:  881. 
v.  Johnson,  2  Ex.  256:  648. 
v.  Johnstone,  1  Hare,  196:  655. 
Sallee  v.  Ireland,  9  Mich.  154:  330. 
v.   Waters,  17  Ala.  482:    1098, 
1099. 
Sailing  v.  McKinney,  1  Leigh,  42: 

1105. 
Saloman  v.  People,  89  111.  App.  374: 

963. 
Salomon  v.  State,  28  Ala.  83:  878. 
Salter  v.  Burt,  20  Wend.  205:  337. 
Salters    v.   Tobias,    3    Paige,    338: 

635. 
Saltoun    v.     Advocate-General,    3 

Macq.  659:  747. 
Saminis  v.  Bennett,  32Fla.458: 1158, 

1168. 
Sampeyreac  v.  United  States,  7  Pet. 

222:  612,  1226. 
Sams  v.  King,  18  Fla.  557:  665,  668, 
670. 
v.  St.  Louis  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  174 
Mo.  53:  417. 
Sam  Slick,  The,  2  Curtis,  C.  C.  4S0: 

1015, 1282. 
Samuels     v.     Commonwealth,     10 

Bush.  491:  914. 
San  Antonio  v.  Gould,  34  Tex.  49: 
188. 
v.  Mehaffy,  96  U.  S.  312:  258. 
Sanborn  v.  People's  Ice  Co.,  82  Minn. 
43:  605. 


Sanders,  In  re,  53  Kan.  191:  298, 

1076, 1240. 
Sanders  v.  Cambria  Co.,  4  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct.  241:  235. 
v.  County  Conrrs,  117  Ala.  543: 

304. 
v.  State,  77  Ind.  227:  513,  558, 

561,  681,  683. 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  Line,  97  Mo. 
26:  21,  22. 
Sanderson  v.  Com'rs,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct 

342:  303. 
San  Diego  v.  Granniss,  77  Cal.  511: 

709,  722,  723,  731,  913. 
San  Diego  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac.  R 

R  Co.,  108  Cal.  46:  517. 
Sandiman  v.  Breach,  7  B.  &  C.  96: 

817. 
Sands  v.  Campbell,  31  N.  Y.  345: 

1282. 
Sanford  v.  Hampden  Paint  &  C. 
Co.,    179  Mass.     10:     1283, 
1284. 
v.  Marsh,  180  Mass.  210:  1058, 

1060. 
v.  Thompson,  18  Ga.  554:  27. 
San   Francisco    v.    Broderick,    125 
Ca!.  188:  135,  409. 
V.  Hazen,  5  Cal.  169:  059,  709. 
v.  Kiernan,  98  Cal.  614:  281. 
v.  Mooney,  106  Cal.  586:  693. 
v.  Sharp,  125  Cal.  534:  1021. 
Sangamon  Co.  v.  Springfield,  63111. 

66:  1194. 
Sanger  v.  Flow,  48  Fed.  152:  785. 
Sanitary  District  v.  Martin,  173  111. 
243:  1003. 
v.  Pay,  199  111.  63:  339. 
San  Joaquin,  etc.  Co.  v.  Stanislaus 

Co.,  113  Fed.  930:   1195. 
San  Luis  Obispo  Co.  v.  Graves,  81 

Cal.  71:  409. 
San  Mateo  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  722: 
87. 


TABLE    OF    CASKS    CITED. 


V.'l.  I,  pp    1  003;  Vol.  II,  pp.  SOB   1815. 


\.  Railroad  Co.,  8  Saw- 
yei  -  -    70. 

.  The,  8  Wheat  188:  85ft 
dq  v.  Qreeaough,  55lowa,127: 

i  v.   State,   2   Iowa,   165:  145, 

rbara  v.  Eldred,  95  Cal. 

Santa   Cruz  Rock   Paving   Co.    v. 

Lyons,  133  Cal.  114:  445.  468. 
Santa  Cruz  W.  Co.  v.  Kron,  74  Cal. 

313. 
.  Maria,  The,  10  Wheat.  431: 

Santissima  Trinidad,  The,  7  Wheat. 

369. 
Barahasa  v.   Armstrong,    16  Kan. 

198,  869. 
Sarazin  v.  Union  R.  R.  Co.,  153  Mo. 

479:  1058,  1060. 
Sarlla  v.  United  States,   152  U.  S. 

570,  973. 
Sasscer  v.   Farmers'   Bank,  4  Md. 

409:  868. 
Sasser    v.   State,  99    Ga.  54:    208, 

292. 
Satterlee  v.  Mathewson,  16  S.  &  R. 
191.  1218. 
v.  Matthewson,2Pet.  380:  1174, 
1198,  1227,  1229. 
Sauers  v.    Giddings,   90  Mich.    50: 

1215. 
Saul  v.  His  Creditors,  5  Mart.  (N.  S.) 

:  23,  402,  488,  620. 
Saunders  v.    Carroll,   12  La   Ann. 
641 
v.   Ilolburn   District  Board  of 
Works  (1895),  1  Q.    B.  64: 
1020. 
v.  Provisional  Municipality,  24 
Fla.  226:  231, 

.  108  Tenn.  340:  188, 


Saunders  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  Line,  97 

Mo.  26:  781. 
Savage  v.  O'Neil,  44  N.  Y.  298:  611. 
v.  State,  18  Fla  970:  820. 
v.  Walahe,  86  Ala.  619:  1122. 
Savanna  v.  Robinson,  81   111.  A  pp. 

471:  1028. 
Savannah  v.  Kelley,  108  U.  S.  184: 

529. 
Savannah,  etc.  Ry.  Co.   v.  Daniels, 
90  Ga.  608:  750. 
v.  Geiger,  21  Fla.  669:  582. 
V.Jordan,  113  Ga.  687:954. 
v.  Savannah,  112  Ga.  164: 1011. 
Savings  Bank  v.  Allen,  28  Conn.  97: 
550. 
v.  Burns.  104  Cal.  437:  570,650. 
v.  United  States,  19  Wall.  227: 
671,  673. 
Savings  Bank's  Petition,  69  N.  H. 

84:  1200. 
Savings  Inst  v.  Makin,  23  Me.  360: 

670. 
Sawyer  v.  Dooley,  21  Nev.  390:  137, 

413. 
Sawyers  v.  Baker,  72  Ala.  49:  517. 
Saxton  National  Bank  v.  Bennett, 

138  Mo.  494:  1123. 
Sayers  v.  Wilmington  &  N.  R.  R. 

Co.,  3Penn.  Del.  249:  177. 
Sayre  v.  Elyton  Land  Co.,  73  Ala 
85:  1050,  1051. 
v.  Pollard,  77  Ala.  608:  71,  87. 

112. 
v.  Wheeler.  32  Iowa,  559:  612. 
Sayre-Xewlon  Lumber  Co.  v.  Park, 

4  Colo.  A  pp.  482:  1254 
Scagys  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
10  Md.  208:  665,  699,  810,  934,  1055, 
1111. 

e  v.  Stovall,  67  Ala.  237:  862, 
863,  L055,  1254. 

3  v.  Marshall,  96  Tex.  140:325. 
v.  Otto,  127  Ala.  582:  12ia 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


CXC1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Scales  v.  State,  47  Ark.  476:  446. 
Scan  Ion  v.  Childs,  33  Wis.  663:  890. 
Scarritt  v.  County  Ct.,  89  Mo.  App, 

585:  707,  914. 
Schaeffer  v.  Werling,  188  U.  S.  516 

40,  614. 
Schaezlein  v.  Cabaniss,  135  Cal.  466 

156. 
Schafer  v.  Eneu,  54  Pa.  St.  304: 1233. 
v.  Smith,  63  Ind.  226:  1265. 
v.  State,  49  Ind.  460,  1266. 
Scharf  v.  Tasker,  73  Md.  378:  306. 
Scharff  v.  Meyer,  133  Mo.  428:  1058, 

1060. 
Scharpf  v.  Schmidt,  172  III.  255:  39. 
Schawacker    v.    McLaughlin,    139 

Mo.  333:  694,  730,  1307. 
Scheftels  v.  Tabert,  46  Wis.  439: 

445. 
Scheibler  v.  Mundinger,  86  Tenn. 

674:  703. 
Schell's  Ex'rs  v.  Fanche,  138  U.  S. 

562:  890. 
Schenok  v.  States,  60  N.  J.  L.  381: 

264. 
Schenley  v.  Commonwealth,  36  Pa. 

St.  29:  1232. 
Schenley's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  98: 

806. 
Schimmele  v.  Chicago,  etc.  E.  R. 

Co.,  34  Minn.  216:  414. 
Schintgen  v.  La  Crosse,  117  Wis. 

158:  392,  1232. 
Schlandecker  v.  Marshall,  72  Pa, 

St.  200:  788. 
Schlegel  v.  Am.  Beer,  etc.  Co.,  12 
Abb.  N.  C.  280:  698. 
v.  Am.  Beer,  etc.  Co.,  64  How. 
Pr.  196:  698. 
Schlicht  v.  State.  56  Ind.  173:  876. 
Schmalz  v.  Wooley,  56  N.  J.  Eq. 

649:  426. 
Schmidt,   Ex  parte,  24  S.  C.  363: 

528. 


Schmidt  v.  Hoyt,  1  Edw.  Ch.  652: 
1066. 
v.  Lewis,  63  N.  J.  L.  565:  464. 
Schmidt   v.    Mitchell,  84   111.    195: 

1265. 
Schnick  v.  Jeffersonville,  152  Ind. 

204:  1237,  1238. 
Schneider  v.  Hosier,  21  Ohio  St.  98: 
1265,  1266. 
v.  Hussey,  2  Idaho,  8:  325. 
v.  Staples,  66  Wis.  167:  460,  487, 
519. 
Schoenberg  v.  Adler,  105  Wis.  645: 

22. 
School  Board  Election,  In  re,  (1894), 

1  Q.  B.  725:  1160. 
Schoolcraft  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  R. 

Co.,  92  Ky.  233:  413. 
School  Directors,  In  re,  5  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct,  750:  1109. 
School  Directors  v.  School  Direct- 
ors, 73  111.  249:  433,  796. 
v.  School  Directors,  135  111.  464: 
446. 
School  District  v.  Coleman,  39  Neb. 
391 :  673. 
v.   Eckert,  84  Miss.   417:  516, 

518. 
v.    Fairchild,   10    Wash.    198: 

789. 
v.  Pittsburgh,  184  Pa.  St.  156: 

470. 
v.  Prentiss,  66  N.  H.  145:  469. 
v.  School  District,  63  Ark.  543- 

758,  761. 
v.  Smith,  195  Pa.  St.  515:  410. 
v.  Wallace,  73  Mo.  App.  317- 
1124. 
School  Districts,  In  re,  26  Colo.  136" 

411. 
School  Inspectors  v.  People,  20  111 

525:  1051. 
School   Trustees  v.  Com'rs,  1  Nev. 
335:  106.  ' 


TABLE   OF   casts   CITED. 


Ihe  rafurm—  we  to  the  pa  tea:  Vol  i.  pp.  I  803;  Vol.  tt,  pp.  60B-1816. 


■nor  Pauline's  Cat  jo*.  United 
:  i  ranoh,  158:  699. 
Sobooner  Rachel,  The,  v.  United 
B  Or.  899:  546,  546,  549, 

oner  Thompson  v.  Martin,  16 
D.  a)  222:  1076 
\  I  felarnault,  45  Minn. 
174:  1166. 

.  St.  Louis,  117  Mo.  131: 

Sohriefer  v.  Wood,  5  Blatclif.  215: 

753. 
Bohroder   v.  Crawford,  91  111.  357: 

\  1266,  121 
Bohnienburg  v.  Harriman,21  Wall. 

44: 
Bcbulherr  v.    Bordeaux,  Gi   Miss. 

59:  164,  171. 
Bchultz   v.    Schultz,    144  III.   290: 

Bohumacher  v.  McCallip,  G9  Ohio 

" :  109.  597. 

Schuremann  v.  Union  Cent  L.  Ins. 

Co..  165  Ma  641:  1226. 
Schuster  v.  Supervisors,  27  Minn. 

941. 
Schut  v.  Ry.  Co.,  70  Mich.  433:  420. 
Sohuykill  Nav.  Co.  v.  Loose,  19  Pa. 

St.  15:  644 
Schuyler    v.   Mercer,   4  Gilm.    20, 

cracker  v.  Ludington,  77  Mo. 
A  pp.  415:  766. 
•varz  v.  Dover,  OS   N.  J.  L.  576: 

v.  District  Court,  23  New 
:  408. 
iwenke  v.  Union  Depot  &  R,  R. 
7  Cola  512: 493,  527,  534 

imore   v.  Smith,   13  John.  322: 

•ins  v.  Perry,  46  Tex.  Ill:  1049, 


Scorpion  s.  M.  Co.  v.  Marsana  10 

Nev.  370:  1050. 
Scotia,  The,  14  Wall.  170:  865,86a 
Scott,  In  re,  126  Fed.  981:  1160. 
Scotl   Matter  of,  148  N.Y.  588: 1159, 

1164 
Scott  v.  Chope,  83  Neb.  41:  126a 
v.  Duke.  3  La.  Ann.  2.->3:  1227. 
v.  Flowers.  61  Neb.  620:  58ft 
v.  Jersey  City,  68  N.  J.  L.  687: 

707. 
v.  Lunt's  Adm'r,  7  Pet.  603:  609. 
v.  Mills,  7  Colo.  App.  155:  1259. 
v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  38  Mo. 

App.  523:  441,986. 

v.  Searless,  1  S.  &  M.  590:  844. 

v.  Sinx.ns. 70  Ala, 352:  517.1059. 

v.  State,  22  Ark.  369:  660,  683. 

Scottish   Drainage  &   Investment 

Co.   v.   Campbell,  L.   R   14  I  J.  L 

139:  1021. 

Scovern  v.  State,  6  Ohio  St.  288: 

922. 
Scoville  v.  Can  field,  14  John.  888:  25. 
Scowden's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St.  422: 

395,  397. 
Scrafford  v.  Supervisors,   11  Mich. 

647:  335. 
Scranton-  v.  Whyte,  148  Pa.  St.  419: 

387, 384,  389. 
Scruggs  v.  Brackin,  4  Yerg.  528:  S74. 

886. 
Scudder  v.  Trenton  Del.  Falls  Co.,  1 

N.  J.  Eq.  694:  57ft 
Scutt's  Case,  2  Va.  Cas.  54:  554. 
Seaboard  Nat.   Bank  v.  Woeston, 

170  Mo.  19:  129. 
Seabolt  v.  Commonwealth,  187  Pa. 
St.  318:  370. 
v.  Com'rs,  187  Pa.  St.  318:  222, 
281. 
Seal  v.  State,  18  S.  &  M.  286:  1246. 
Seale  v.  Mitchell,  5  CaL  403:  899: 
900. 


TABLE   OF    CASES    CITED. 


CC1 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Seaman  v.  Washington,  172  Pa.  St. 

467:  503. 
Seamans  v.  Carter,  15  Wis.  548:  641. 
Seanor  v.  County  Com'rs,  13  Wash. 

48:  602. 
Searcy  v.  State,  40  Tex.  Crim.  App. 

460:  135,  419. 
Searight's  Estate,  163  Pa.  St.  210: 

447. 
Searles    v.  Aerhoff,  28    Neb.   668: 
1303. 
v.  Kanawha,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  32 
W.  Va.  370:  1292. 
Sears  v.  Burnham,  17   N.  Y.  445: 
1125. 
v.  Cottrell,  5  Mich.  251:  13,  38, 

631. 
v.  Ma  honey,  66  Fed.  860:  1160. 
•Seattle  v.  Clark,  28  Wash.  717:  464. 
Seattle  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  O'Meara,  4 

Wash.  17:  529,  537,  1139. 
Seaving  v.  Brinkerhoflf,  2  John.  Ch. 

329:  645. 
Seay  v.  Bank  of  Rome,  66  Ga.  609: 

221,  262. 
Second  Ave.  M.  E.  Church,  Matter 

of,  66  N.  Y.  395:  670,  1009. 
Second   German    Am.   B.  Ass'n  v. 

Newman,  50  Md.  62:  231. 
Second  Municipality  v.  Morgan,  1 

La.  Ann.  Ill:  593. 
Second    Ward    Savings    Bank    v. 

Schranck,  97  Wis.  250:  1208. 

Security  Title  &  T.  Co.  v.  West  Chi- 

cago  St.  Ry.  Co.,  91  111.  App.  332: 

1291. 

Sedalia  v.  Gold,  91  Mo.  App.  32:  907. 

Sedgwick  v.  Bunker,  16  Kan.  498: 

643. 
Sedgwick  Co.  v.  Bailey,  13  Kan. 

607:  188. 
Seekouk  v.  Rehoboth,  8  Cush.  371: 

327,  331. 
Seely  v.  State,  11  Ohio,  501:  932. 


Segars,   Ex  parte,   32   Tex.   Crim. 

Rep.  553:  304. 
Segars  v.  Parrott,  54  S.  C.  1 :  135. 
Sego    v.   Stoddard,    136    Ind.  297: 

1145,  1291. 
Seidell  bender  v.  Charles,  4  S.  &  R 

159:  938. 
Selden  v.  Preston,  11  Bush,  191:  37. 
Selking  v.  Hebel,  1  Mo.  App.  340: 

611. 
Sellars  v.  Carpenter,  27  Me.  497:  946. 
v.  Fite,  3  Baxt.  131:  1117. 
v.  Foster,  27  Neb.  118:  1268. 
Selma,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  45 

Ala.  696:  893. 
Selma,    etc.   R.  R.   Co.    v.   United 

States,  139  U.  S.  560:  676. 
Selman  v.  Wolfe,  27  Tex.  68:  1039. 
Semmes  v.   Hartford   Ins.  Co.,  13 

Wall.  158:  1015. 
Semple  v.  Hagar,  27  Cal.  1C3:  606. 
Senate  of  Happy  Homes  v.  Super- 
visors, 99  Mich.  117:  146. 
Sener  v.  Ephrata,  176  Pa.   St.  80: 

442,  797,  801. 
Sequestration   Cases,  30  Tex  688: 

1210. 
Sessions  v.  Romadka,  145  U.  S.  29: 
781. 
v.  State,  115  Ga.  18:  191,  268. 
Seton  v.  Hoyt,  34  Ore.  266:  953,  954, 

1159,  1191. 
Seven  Hickory  v.  Ellery,  103  U.  S. 

423:  104. 
Sewall  v.  Jones,  9  Pick.  412:  1000, 

1014. 
Seward  Co.  Com'rs  v.  iEtna  L.  Ins. 

Co.,  90  Fed.  222:  340. 
Sewell  v.  Taylor,  29  L.  J.  N.  C.  50: 

804. 
Sewer  Assessment  for  Passaic,  In 

re,  54  N.  J.  L.  156:  380. 
Seymour,   Ex  parte,    14  Pick.   43: 

992. 


evil  I  LB1  i     01     0 18E8   CITED. 

Tin-  raterenoes are  totlw  paj  es:  VoL  i.  pp.  i  808;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605  1815. 


our  v.  Judd,  8  N.  V.  184:  1140. 
v.  Marvin,  11  Barb.  80:  869,880. 
v.  Phillips,  eta  Co.,!  Bisa  460: 

v.  Tacoma,  6  Wash.  188:  871. 
iding,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

•waKi    v.    Phillips,   72    Minn. 
142,  776 
Shakman  v.  Schlueter,  7?  Wis.  402: 

1145. 
Shallow   v.   Salem,  186  Mass.  13G: 

shank  v.  Ravens  wood,  43  "W.  Va. 
1145. 

a  i.  r's Assignment,  104 Iowa, 
744. 

ion  v.  People,  5  Mich.  71:  85, 

v.  State,  39  Neb.  658:  424. 

irte,    10  Jur.   (N.   S.) 
1018:  1112. 
rp  v.  Johnson,  4  Hill,  92:    G45, 

1009,  1046,  1140. 
v.  Mayor,  31  Barb.  572:  190,287, 
990,  1252. 

-pier,  4  Hill,  7G:    645,    862, 

1001,  1009,  1010,  1040,  1016, 

1061,  1137. 

v.    Warren,  6  Price,  131:   463, 

498. 

Sharpe  v.  Spengler,  48  Miss.  360: 

1255. 
Shattuck  v.  By  ford,  62  Ark.  481: 
1234 
v.  Daniel,  52  Miss.  834:  37. 
v.  Kincaid,  31  Ore.  379:  1313. 
v.  Lyons,  62  Ark.  338:  1231. 
Shaver  v.  Penn.  Co.,  71  Fed.  931: 

Shaw  v.   Brown,  35  Mis.-.  246:    23, 
017. 

o  Sash,  etc.  Co.,  144 
111.  520:  1254. 


Shaw   v.  Clark,  49   Mich.   884:  961, 
969, 
v.  Dodge,  5  N.  II.  465:  110. 
v.  Morley,  L  K.  8  Ex.  187:  887 
v.  Morley,  89  Mich.  313:  1159. 
v.  Orr,  30  Iowa,  355:  1119. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  557: 

862. 
v.  Rudder,  9  Ir.  C.  L.  (U.  S.) 
219:  619. 
Shaw  &  E.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kilbourne, 

etc.  Co.,  80  Minn.  125:   1207. 
Shawnee  Co.  v.  Carter,  2  Kan.  115: 

999. 
Shawnee  Co.  Com'rs  v.  State,  49 

Kan.  480:  427. 
Shea  v.   Muncie,  148  Ind.  14:  467, 

527,  536 
Shear  v.  Columbia  Com'rs,  14  Fla. 
11(1:  56a 
v.  Com'rs,  14  Fla.  146:  493. 
Shearer    t.    Board    of  Sup'rs,  128 

Mich.  552:  301,  1302. 
Sheasley  v.  Keens,  48  Neb.  57:  306. 
Shedd   v.  Moran,  10  111.  App.  618: 

28. 
Sheets  v.  Selden,  2  Wall.  177:  328, 

329. 
Sheetz  v.  Hanbest,  81  Pa  St.  100: 

730. 
Shehane  v.   Bailey,  110  Ala.  308: 

177. 
Sheibler   v.   Mundinger,  86  Tenn. 

674:  747. 
Shelby  v.  Guy,  11  Wheat  361:  014, 

615,  620,  1211,  1279. 
Shelby   Co.    v.  Exposition   Co.,  96 

Tenn.  653:  1028. 
Sheldon  v.  Boston  &  A.  R.  Co.,  172 

Mass  180:  848. 
Sheley   v.   Detroit,   45   Mich.    431: 

697,  1071. 
Shellenberger  v.  Ranson,  31  Neb. 
61:  742. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CC111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Shelton    v.    State,    36  Tenn.    520: 

435. 
Shenk  v.  McKennon,  11  Pa.  Supr. 

Ct.  84:  303. 
Shepards  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.  R.  R. 

Co.,  6  Wis.  578:  458. 
Shepherd  v.  People,  25  N.  Y.  40G: 

1187. 
Shepherd  v.  Shepherd,  4  Kan.  App. 

546:  237. 

Sheppard  v.  Dowling,  127  Ala.  1: 

13,  132,  300. 

v.  Gosnold,  Vaughan,  169:  887. 

v.  Johnson,  2  Humph.  296:  357. 

v.  State,  1  Tex.  App.  522:  552. 

Sherborn  v.  Wells,  3  B.  &  S.  784: 

778. 
Sheridan  v.  Stevenson,  44  N.  J.  L. 

371:  52a 
Sheriff    v.   Caddo    Parish,   37  La. 
Ann.  788:  884. 
v.  Kershaw  Co.,  56  S.  C.  400: 
525. 
Sherman  v.  Des  Moines,  100  Iowa, 
88:  468,  731,  1300. 
v.  Dodge,  6  John.  Ch.  107:  1137. 
v.   Langham,  92  Tex.  13:   552, 

685,  1070. 
v.  State,  17  Fla.  888:  481,  483. 
v.  Story,  30  Cal.  276:  50,  51,  53, 
609. 
Sherman  Co.  v.  Simons,  109  U.  S. 

735:  626. 
Sherwin  v.  Bugbee,  16  Vt.  439:  894, 

923. 
Sherwood  v.  Atlantic  &  D.  Ry.  Co., 
94  Va.  291:  694,749,  750. 
v.  Grand  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  132  Mo. 

339:  404,  406. 
v.  Judd,  3  Bradf.  419:  27. 
v.  Reade,  7  Hill,  431:  645,  997, 
1037,  1047. 
Shewell  Ave.,  20  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  278: 
673. 
n 


I  Shiel  v.  Mayor,  etc.  6  H.  &  N.  796: 

1019. 

Shields  v.  Bennett,  8  W.  Va.  83: 

184,  188,  190,  193,  203,  204, 

222,  447,  581. 

v.  Clifton  Hill  L.  Co.,  94  Tenn. 

123:  1237. 
v.  Johnson    Co.,    144    Mo.   76: 

1159. 
v.  Perkins,  2  Bibb,  230:  898. 
Shillito  v.  Thompson,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B. 

D.  12:  837. 
Ship  Cotton  Planter,  1  Paine,  23: 

310. 
Shipley    v.   Terre  Haute,  74  Ind. 

297:  221,  258. 
Shipman  v.   Forbes,  97  Cal.   572: 
1145. 
v.  Henbest,  4T.R.  109:  563, 1052. 
Shively  v.  Lankford,  174  Mo.  535: 

2S2. 
Shivers  v.  Newton,  45  N.  J.  L.  469: 
199,  200,  202,  203,  255. 
v.  Wilson,  5Har.&J.  130:  1048, 
1049. 
Shoemaker,  In  re,  2  Okl.  600:  557, 
1184. 
v.  Lansing,  17  Wend.  327:  663, 

708. 
v.  Smith,  37  Ind.  122:  251. 
v.  State,  20  N.  J.  L.  153:  484. 
Shonk   v.    Brown,  61  Pa.  St.  320: 

1229,  1233. 
Shonkwiler's  Assignment,  104  Iowa, 

67:  703. 
Shot  well  v.  Covington,  69  Miss.  735: 
781. 
v.  Harrison,  22  Mich.  410:  866. 
Shotwell's  Ex'r  v.  Dennman,  1  N. 

J.  L.  174:  986. 
Shrader,  Ex  parte,  33  Cal.  283:  21. 
Shreve  v.  Cicero,  129  111.  226:  174. 
Shrewsbury   v.   Boylston,  1   Pick. 
105:  796. 


TABLE   OF   OASES   OITED. 


The  rafaranoM  arc  to  ih<>  pa  ea:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-608;  Vol.  n,  pp.  BOB  1811 


wsbury  v.  Boott,  OC.  B.  (N.  &) 
1:  B 

88  Ohio  St.  130: 

k>r  v.  Lancaster,  170  P.O.  St. 

pshire  v.  State,  12  Ark.  100: 

v.  Egan,  83  111.  56:  1265, 

Shull  v.  Barton,  58  Neb.  741:  493, 

Bhumaker  v.  Johnson.  85  Ind.  33: 

1142, 
Shumats  v.  Williams,  34  Ga.  251: 

1077. 

Shumway   v.    Benn.tt,    29    Mich. 

165:  13. 
Shute  v.  Wade,  5  Yerg.  8:  911. 
Bhuttuok  v.  Smith,  6  X.  D.  50:  1230, 

y  v.  Smith.  2  Mich.  486:  862, 
1001,  1046,  1137. 
Sickles  v.  Sharp,  13  John.  497:  962, 

Sidney  v.  White,  12  Ala.  728:  620. 
Sidway   v.    Lawson,  58   Ark.   117: 
.  1237. 
ell  v.  Evans,  1  Pen.  &  W.  383: 

■Id,  Ex  parte,  100  U.  S.  871:  39, 

Siegbert  v.  Stiles,  39  Wis.  533:  S77. 

el  v.  People,  106  111.  89:  1277. 

1  v.  Commonwealth,  104  Pa. 

■ 

v.  l.umly.  GO  Miss.  522:  557. 

v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  21 

Wis.  370:  493. 

i  man  v.  Hay,  59  Ohio  St  582: 
134   397,  407. 

an  v.  Scranton,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

Sill  j,  15  N.  Y.  297:  1051. 


Sill  v.  Worswiok,  1  H.  Black.  672: 
87. 

Silver  v.  Ladd,  7  Wall.  219:  664, 

1087. 
Silvergood   v.    Storrick,   1   Watts, 

532:  946. 
Silvey  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Cc,  94  Ga. 

609:  300. 
Silvis  v.  Aultman,  141  111.  032:  671. 
Simard  v.  Sullivan,  71   Minn.  517: 

270,  370. 
Simco  v.  State,  8  Tex.  App.  406: 

643,  1228. 
Simcoke  v.  Grand  Lodge,  84  Iowa, 

772. 
Simmons  v.  Bradley,  27  Wis.  689: 
519. 
v.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  147:  327. 
v.  Leonard,  89  Tenn.  622:  1053. 
v.  Trumbo,  9  W.  Va.  358:  879. 
Simms,  Ex  parte,  40  Fla.  432:  1009. 
Simms  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  38  Ga 

129:  869. 
Simon  v.  Northrup,  27  Ore.  487:  303. 
Simonds  v.  Powers,  28  Vt.  354:  662, 

6GG,  722,  729. 
Simonson  v.  Durfee,  50  Mich.  80: 

336,  337. 
Simon  ton  v.  Barrell,  21  Wend.  362: 

1087.  1251. 
Simpkin,  Ex  parte,  105  E.  C.  L.  R. 

392:  335,  836. 
Simpson  v.  Bailey,  3  Ore.  515:  306. 
v.  Fogo,  1  H.  &  M.  195:  27. 
v.  Robert,  35  Ga.  180:  794. 
v.  Union  Stock  Yards,  110  Fed. 

799:  88. 
v.  Unwin,  3  B.  &  Ad.  134:  979, 

1108,  1297. 
v.  Willard,  14  S.  C.  191:  887. 
Sims,  In  re,  51  Kan.  1:  6. 
Sims,  In  re,  58  Kan.  152:  10. 
Sims  v.   Hampton,  1  S.  &  R.  411: 
828,  329,  335. 


TABLE   OF    OASES    CITED. 


CCV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Sindall  v.  Baltimore,  93  Md.  526: 

327. 
Singer    v.   Hasson,   50  L.   T.    326: 

1225. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cullaton,  90  Mich. 
639:  1058. 
v.  Fleming,  39  Neb.  679:  302, 

429. 
v.  Graham,  8  Ore.  17:  652. 
v.  Shull,  74  Mo.  App.  486:  1159, 

1191. 
v.  Wright,  97  Ga.  114:  693,  720, 
722.  734. 
Single  v.  Supervisors,  38  Wis.  363: 

1230. 
Singleton  v.  Eureka  Co.,  22  Nev.  91: 

407. 
Sinking  Fund  Com'rs  v.  George, 

104  Ky.  260:  7,  111,474,586. 
Sinnott  v.  Whitechapel  3  C.  B.  (N. 

S.)  674:  914. 
Sioux  City  &  St.  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
United  States,  159  U.  S.  349: 1027. 
Sioux  City  St.  R'y  Co.  v.  Sioux  City, 

78  Iowa,  747:  1195. 
Sipe  v.   People,  26  Colo.  127:  324, 

1299. 
Sissing  v.  Beach,  99  Mich.  439:  1267. 
Sjoberg  v.  Security  S.  &  L.  Co.,  73 

Minn.  203:  78,  122. 
Skagit  Co.  v.  Stiles,  10  Wash.  388: 

583,  602. 
Skaneatelas  Water  Works  Co.  v. 
Skaneatelas,  184  U.  S.  354:  1023. 
Skelly  v.  School  District,   103  Cal. 

652:  953,  954,  1262. 
Skillman  v.  Chicago,  eta  R.  R.  Co., 
.      78  Iowa,  404:  1226. 
Skinner  v.  Collector,  42  N.  J.  L.  407: 
368,  377. 
v.  Garnett  Gold  Min.   Co.,  96 

Fed.  735:  222. 
v.  Henderson,  26  Fla.  121:  503. 
v.  State,  97  Ga.  690:  974. 


Skinner  v.  Usher,  L.  R  7  Q.  B.  422: 
778,  804. 
v.  Wilhelm,  63  Mich.  568:  250. 
Skyrme  v.  Occidental,  etc.  Co.,  8 

Nev.  219:  445. 
Slack  v.  Jacob,  8  W.  Va.,  640:  186, 
190,  258,  925,  926,  928. 
v.  Maysville,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  13 
B.  Mon.  1:  16,  170. 
Slade  v.  Drake,  Hobart,  295:  639. 
Slark  v.  Highgate  Archway  Co.,  5 

Taunt.  792:  949. 
Slaughter  v.  Bernard,  88  Wis.  Ill: 
22,  623. 
v.   Louisville,  89  Ky.  112:  10, 
1232. 
Slaughter-Horse  Cases,  16  Wall.  36: 

548,  1019,  1193. 
Slauson  v.  Racine,  13  Wis.  398:  596. 
Sleight  v.  Roe,  125  Mich.  585:  1159, 

1166. 
Slidell  v.  Grandjean,  111  U.  S.  412: 

1021,  1025. 
Sligh  v.   Grand  Rapids,   84  Mich. 

497:  199,  266. 
Slinger  v.  Henneman,  38  Wis.  504: 

145,  152,  592. 
Slingluff  v.    Weaver,   66  Ohio  St. 

621:  690,  694,  696,  697,  747. 
Sloan  v.  Johnson,  14  S.  &  M.  47: 
646. 
v.  Pacific  Co.,  61  Mo.  24:  1193. 
Slocum  v.  Bear  Valley  Irr.  Co.,  122 
Cal.  555:  416. 
v.   Neptune,   68  N.   J.  L.  595: 
221,  281,  916,  955. 
Smails  v.  White,  4  Neb.  357:  448. 
Small  v.  Edrick,  5  Wend.  137:  327, 
330. 
v.  Lutz,  41  Ore.  570:  442. 
v.  Small,  129  Pa.  St.  366:  880, 
1295. 
Smathers  v.    Commissioners,    125 
N.  C.  480:  60,  92,  93,  95. 


i  ai;i  i:    01   0ABB8  OITED. 


.    VoL  I,  pp.  1-Gltt;  Vol.  II.  pp.  005-1315. 


:h  v.  Mager,  M  N.  J.  L  94: 

.ton  v.  Man  0,83 Wis. 76:  188& 
Bmeta  v.  Wethersbee,  R.  M.  Cbarlt 

I  v.  Prudential  Ins.  Co.,  15 
\pP.  442:  1160.  1191. 

i.  Ex  parte,   40  Cal.   419:  4G0. 
582. 

x  parte,  L.  R  3  Q.  R  D. 

i  v.  Adams,  .r)  De  Gex.  M.  &  G. 
712:  664,  722L 
v.  Allen.  89  Misa  4G9:  1102. 
v.  Appleton,  1!)  Wis.  468:  1119. 
v.   Arapahoe  Dist.  Ct.,  4  Colo. 

v.  Argall,  G  Hill,  479:  645,1039. 
v.  Armour,  1  Penn.  (Del.)  361: 
1261. 

v.  Banker,  3  How.  Pr.  142:  678. 
v.  Bartram,  11  Ohio  St.  690:  610, 

v.  Bell,  70  111.  App.  490:   1200. 
v.  Bell,  10  11  &  W.  378:  665, 

*v.  Bohler,  72  Ga.  546:  221. 
v.  Brown,  L.  R  6  Q.   B.  729: 

73a 

v.  Bryan,  100  Va.  199:  731,  732. 
v.  Buffalo,  159  N.  Y.  427:  1230. 
v.  Cassity,  9  B.  Mon.  192:  332. 
v.  Causey,  22  Ala.  508:  646. 
v.  Charter  Oalc  Ins.  Co.,  64  Mo. 

330:  1016. 
v.    Chicago,  etc.    Ry.   Co.,   80 

Iowa,  202:  510. 
v.  Commonwealth,  8  Bush.  108: 

1S5.  190,221,  224, 
v.  Critcher,  92  Ky.  586:  502. 
v.   Crittenden,   10    Mich.    152: 

1119, 
v.  Crutcber,  92  Ky.  586:  136. 
v.  Day,  39  Ore,  531:  447. 


Smith  v.  District  Ct.,  4  Cola  235: 
1169,  1823. 
v.  Drew,  5  Masa  514:  917, 1057. 
v.  Dunn,  04  Cal.  164:  313. 
v.  Eau  Claire,  78  Wia  457:  519, 

523. 
v.  Estes.  46  Me.  158:  561. 
v.  Gould,  4  Moore,  P.  C.  21:  611. 
v.  Harris,  34  Ga.  182:  328. 
v.  Helmer,  7  Barb.  416:  912. 
v.  Hickman,  Cooke,  330:   463, 

467,  518,  853. 
v.  Horton,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  28: 

1260. 
v.  Howell,  60  N.  J.  L  384:  437. 
v.  Hoyt,  14  Wia  252:  317,  544, 

5 1 5. 

v.  Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Co.,  158 

I  ml.  425:  134.  339,  385,  398. 

v.  Janesville,  26  Wis.  291:  167. 

v.  Judge,  17  Cal.  558:  3,  13,  18, 

349. 
v.  Kelly,  24  Ore.  464:  560. 
v.  Kernochan,  7  How.  198:  614. 
v.  Kibbee,  9  Ohio  St.  563:  642. 
v.  Lindo,  4  C.   B.  (N.  S.)  395: 

748,  865. 
v.  Lindo, 27  L,  J.  C.  P.  200:  74a 
v.  Lock  wood,  13  Barb.  209:  638, 

917. 
v.  Louisville,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  62 

Miss.  510:  1217,  1218. 
v.  Madison,  7  Ind.  86:  1033. 
v.  Mason,  44  Neb.  610:   22,  623. 
v.  Mattingly,  96  Ky.  228:  517, 

519. 
v.  Mayor,  34  How.  Pr.  508:  251, 

287. 
v.  McClain,    146   Ind.   77:   300, 

578,  597. 
v.  McDermott,  93  Cal.  421:  340, 

414. 
v.  Mitchell,  Rico  (S.   C),  315: 
610,  778. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCV11 


Tho  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  VoL  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Smith  v.  Moffat,  1  Barb.  65:  644, 
862,  990,  1246,  1249,  1251. 
v.  Morrison,  22  Pick.  430:  313, 

1287. 
v.  Mumford,  9  Cow.  29:  645. 
v.  Nobles    Co.,  37  Minn.    535: 

515. 
v.  Odell,    1    Pin.    (Wis.)    449: 

1051. 
v.  Patton,  103  Ky.  444:  771. 
f.  People,   47  N.   Y.    330:   512, 

513,  571,  674,  714,  848,  914. 
v.  Philadelphia,  81  Pa.  St.  38: 

711. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  182  Pa.  St.  139: 

572. 
v.  Railway  &  Bridge  Co.,   97 

Iowa,  545:  1030. 
v.  Randall,  6  Cal.  47:  729. 
v.  Randall,    3    Hill,    495:    644, 

1081. 
v.  Ratcliff,  66  Miss.  683:  1260. 
v.  Reynolds,  8  Hun,  128:  1268. 
•v.  Rines,  2  Sumn.  354:  1112. 
v.  Rowles,  85  Ind.  264:  334. 
v.  Sedalia,  152  Mo.  283:  1127. 
v.  Smith,  19  Gratt.  545:  611. 
v.  Smith,  19  Wis.  522:  778. 
v.  Speed,  50  Ala.  276:   462,  511, 

884, 
v.  Spooner,  3  Pick.   229:  1014, 

1015. 
v.  State,  29  Fla.  408:  300,  446. 
v.  State,  90  Ga.  133:  341. 
v.  State,  28  Ind.  321:  651,  687, 

1065. 
v.  State,  66  Md.  215:  701,  928. 
v.  State,  14  Mo.  147:  518. 
v.  State,  34  Neb.  689:  448,  450. 
v.  State,  1  Stew.  506:  481,  482, 

517. 
v.  State,  17  Tex.  191:  966,  969. 
v.  Stevens,  82  111.  554:  644,  871, 

1086,  1249. 


Smith  v.  Stevens,  10  Wall.  321:  638, 
917,  920. 
v.  Strong,  2  Hill,  241:  625. 
v.  Swain,  71  N.  H.  277:    1117, 

1119. 
v.  Tallapoosa,  2  Woods,  574:  613. 
v.  Tilly,  1  Keble,  712:  893. 
v.  Townsend,  148  U.  S.  490:  646, 

885,  991. 
v.  Van  Gilder,  26  Ark.  527: 1217. 
v.  Waters,  25  Ind.  397:  1000. 
v.  Wehrly,  157  Pa.  St  407:  464. 
v.  Wood,  L.  R.  24  Q.  B.  D.  23: 
964. 
Smith  Canal  Co.  v.  Denver,  20  Colo. 

84:  1139. 
Smithee  v.  Campbell,  41  Ark.  471: 
71,  78. 
v.  Garth,  33  Ark.  17:  71. 
Smith's  Petition,  5  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  465: 

1149,  1152. 
Smith's  Petition,  12  Pa.  Dist.  Ct 

333:  306. 
Smoot  v.  Fitzhugh,  9  Port  72:  619. 
v.  Hart,  33  Ala.  69:  1103. 
v.  Peoples'  Perpetual  L.  &  B. 
Ass'n,  95  Va.  686:  264, 1197. 
Smyers  v.  Beam,  158  Pa.  St.  57:  432. 
Smythe  v.  Fiske,  23  Wall.  374:  545. 
Sneath  v.  Mayer,  64  N.  J.  L.  94:  214. 
Sneed  v.  Commonwealth,  6  Dana, 
338:  683,  695,  702,  929,  962. 
v.  Falls  Co.,  91  Tex.  168:  920. 
Sneider  v.   Heidelberger,   45  Ala. 

126:  1200. 
Snell   v.  Bridgewater,  etc.  Co.,  24 
Pick.  296:  754. 
v.  Campbell,  24  Fed.  880:  555. 
v.  Chicago,  133  111.  413:  264,  290, 
1153,  1154. 
Snoddy  v.  Cage,  5  Tex.  106:  784. 
Snook  v.  Clark,  20  Mont.  230:  260. 
Snowden  v.  State,  69   Md.  203:  510, 
774. 


oovm 


TABLE    OF    CAMS    OITBD. 


I  roooM  are  to  the  pa        v.. 1. 1,  pp.  l-cai;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


r,  in  re,  106  Mioh.  18 

t  v    Bauohman,  8  S.  &  R. 

v.  Circuit  Judge,  80  Mich.  511: 

1117,  1188,  1805. 
v.  Compton,  87  Tex  374:  431, 

117.  885,  1064,  1005. 

v.  Snyder,  B  Barb.  021: 1162. 

v.  Warford,  11  Mo.  513:  413. 

v.  Warren,  2  Cow.  513:32a 

v.  People,  134  111.  66:  693,  706, 

B85, 

y     etc.    v.    New    Haven,    8 

Wheat.  464:  640. 

v.  Wheeler,  2  GalL    139:   640, 

1837. 

r  Propagating  the  Gospel 

v.   New  Haven,   8   Wheat    464: 

f  the  Cincinnatis',  Appeal, 

Socorro  Co.  Com'rs.  v.  Leavitt,  4  N. 

M.  S7 
Soehl  v.  State,  39  Neb.  659:  424. 
no  Co.  v.  McCudden,  120  Cal. 

;non  v.  Com'rs,  41  Ga.  157:  104, 

684.  889. 
v.   Denver,  12  Colo.   App.  179: 

514, 
-ions  v.  Freeman,  4  T.  R.  557: 

r    v.    Komanet,   52  Tex.  562: 

Somers  v.  Commonwealth,  97  Va. 

-112,466. 
Somerset  v.  Dighton.  12  Mass.  382: 

Souk  up   v.  Van   Dyke,    109   Mich. 

te.  86  Ma.  617:  1182. 
Southampton    Bridge  Co.  v.  Local 
ird  of  Southampton,  8K&B. 
1053. 


South  Carolina  v.  Gaillard,  101  U. 

S.  433:  551,  1169. 
South  Carolina,  etc.  R  R,  Co.  v. 

Dietzen,  101  Ga.  730:  741. 
South  Carolina,  R  R  Co.  v.  Nix, 

68Ga.572:  25. 
Southern    Bell    T.    &    T.    Co.    v. 
D'Alemberte,    89    Fla.    25:    671, 
758. 
Southern    Boulevard    R.    R.    Co., 

.Matter of,  58  Hun,  497:  1217. 
Southern,  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Stone, 

174  Mo.  1:618. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Mayor,  132 

Ala.  326:  85a 
Southern  Gum    Co.    v.    Laylin,  66 

Ohio  St.  576:  13,  1 
Southern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son, 132  Cal.  408:728. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  119 
Ala.  539:  39,  61  L 
v.  Machinists  Local  Union,  111 
Fed.  49:  703,  744. 
Southgate    v.  Frier,    8    Okl.    435: 
1288. 
v.  Goldthwaite,  1   Bailey,  367: 
675. 
South    Market  Stv    Matter  of,  76 

11  an,  85:433. 
South  Morgantown  v.  Morgan  town, 

49  W.  Va.  729:134,  502. 
South  &  N.  Ala.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris, 65  Ala.  193:  577,  927. 
v.  Wood,  74  Ala.  449:  869,  880. 
South  Omaha  v.  Taxpayers'  League, 

42  Neb.  671:  434. 
South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S. 

260:  70,  74,  91,  98,  605,  607,  608. 
South    Park  Com 're  v.  First  Nat. 

Bank,  177  111.  231:  748,846. 
South's  Heirs  v.  Hoy,  3  Bibb,  522: 
636 

b  St.  Paul  v.  Lampricht  Bros. 
Co.,  88  Fed.  449:  190,  267. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCLX 


fne  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Southwark      Bank     v.     Common- 
wealth, 26  Pa.  St.  446:  457,  463, 
541,  542,  562,  867,  881. 
Southwestern  Coal  Co.  v.  McBride, 

185  U.  S.  499:  1160. 
Southwestern    Mo.    Light    Co.    v. 
Scheurich,  174  Mo.  235:  880,  884. 
Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cohen, 

49  Ga.  627:  965, 1111. 
Southwest  Mo.  Light  Co.  v.  Joplin, 

113  Fed.  817:  1190,  1198. 
South  worth,  Matter  of,  5  Hun,  55: 

521. 
Sovereign  v.  State,  7  Neb.  409:  431, 

432,  448. 
Sovereign     Camp     Woodmen     v. 

Thornton,  115  Ga.  798:  1101. 
Spackman,  Ex  parte,  1  Macn.  &  G. 

170:  816. 
Spackman's  Case,  1   Macn.   &  G. 

170:  666. 
Spangler  v.  Gallagher,  182  Pa.  St. 
277:  829. 
v.  Jacoby,  14  III.  297:  72,78,  91, 
1155. 
Sparhawk  v.  Sparhawk,  116  Mass. 

315:  595. 

Sparks,  Ex  parte,  120  Cal.  395:  574. 

Sparks  v.  Clapper,  30  Ind.  204:  643. 

Sparrow   v.  Com'r,  56    Mich.  567: 

581. 

v.  Davidson  College,  77  N.  C. 

35:  756. 
v.  Strong,  3  Wall.  97:  871. 
Spaulding  v.  Alford,    1   Pick.   33: 
312,  459. 
v.  Lowell,  23  Pick.  71:  1034. 
v.  Nourse,  143  Mass.  490:  1237. 
Spaulding  Log.  Co.  v.  Independence 

Imp.  Co.,  42  Ore.  394:  303. 
Speckert  v.  Louisville,  78  Ky.  287: 

552,  555. 
Speed  v.  Crawford,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  207: 
111. 


Speer  v.  Boggs,  204  Pa.  St.  504:  463, 

508,  512. 
Speer  v.  Mayor,  85  Ga.  49:  86,  12a 
v.  Plank  Road  Co.,  22  Pa.  St 

376:  84,  96. 
v.  School  Directors,  50  Pa.  St 
150:  927,  928. 
Spence  v.  McGowan,  53  Tex.  30: 

1049,  1050. 
Spencer  v.  Griffith,  74  Minn.  55:  408. 
v.  Haug,  45  Minn.  231:  327. 
v.  McBride,  14  Fla.  403:  1211, 

1226. 
v.  Metropolitan  Board,  L  R.  22 

Ch.  Div.  162:  724. 
v.  Myers,   150  N.  Y.   269:   694, 

713,  722,  730. 
v.  State,  5  Ind.  41:  457,  696. 
Spencer's  Case,  6  Coke,  9b:  1278. 
Spensley  v.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  54 

Wis.  433:  877. 

Spier  v.  Baker,  120  Cal.  370:  207, 

305.- 

v.  Morgan,  80  Ga.  581:  300. 

Spieres  v.  Parker,  1  T.  R.  141:  671. 

Spinks  v.  Rome  Guano  Co.,  108  Ga. 

614:  913. 
Spooner  v.  Fletcher,  3  Vt  133:  1099. 
Sprague  v.  Baldwin,  IS  Pa.  Co.  Ct 
568:  847. 
v.  Birdsall,  2  Cow.  419:  1013. 
Spraigue  v.  Thompson,  118  U.  S.  90: 

598,  599. 
Sprecher  v.  Wakeley,  11  Wis.  432: 

1201. 
Spreckels  v.  Spreckels,  116  Cal.  339: 

1165. 
Spring  v.  Collector,  78  111.  101:  673, 

811. 
Springfield  v.  Com'rs,  6  Pick.  501: 
551,  553. 
v.  Conn.  Riv.  R.  R.  Co.,  4  Cush. 

03:  1044. 
v.  Hubbel,  89  Mo.  App.  379:  469. 


cc.x 


TABJ  B    OF   OA81  9    t'l  I'l  l> 


Vol,  I.  pp.  1  B  18;  Vol.  II,  pp.  G05-1315. 


Springflel  l  v.  Starke,  98  Mo.  App 

1045. 
Springfield    Bank  v.  Merriok,    14 

Mass  832: 
Springfield  Grooer  Ca  v.  Walton, 
9o  Mo.  App  536:  777.  S84. 

ii  Min.  Co.  v.  Grogan, 
\pp.  00:   1110. 
Spri  ig  Street,  In   re,  112  Pa.  St. 

Spring   Valley    v.    Spring    Valley 

Co.,  7!  111.  App.  432:  462. 
Spring  Valley  W.  W.  v.  San  Mateo 

W.  \Y..  61  Cal.  123:  1012. 
B]       :    v.  United  States,  20  Wall. 
I:  37,  3a 
I   \.  Murray,  156  Pa.  St.  293: 
7- !.  782 
v.  Standard  Plate  Glass  Co..  201 
Pa  St.  103:  510,  1160,  1191. 
Sprowl  v.  Lawrence,  33  Ala.  674: 

720.  870,  1075,  1090,  1251. 
Spruance  v.  Truax,  9   Houst.  129: 

535. 
Spruck  v.  McRoberts,  139  N.  Y.  193: 

1255. 
Squires'  Case,  12  Abb.  Pr.  38:  689. 
Staats  v.  Hudson  Riv.  R.  R.  Co.,  4 

Abb.  App.  Dec.  287:  512. 
Standard  Cattle  Co.  v.Baird,  8  Wyo. 

144:  470,685.  1064. 
Standard  Radiator  Co.   v.  Pox,  85 

111.  App,  389:  706. 
Standard  Underground  Cable  Co. 
v.  Attorney-General,  46  N.  J.  Eq. 
757,  880. 
Standifer  v.  Wilson,  93  Tex.  232: 

1214. 
Stanford  v.  Coram,  28  Mont.  2S8: 

1211. 
Stanford's    Estate,    126    Cal.    112: 

?e  v.  Dubuque,  62  Iowa,  303: 
430. 


Staniland  v.  Hopkins,  9  M.  &  W. 

178:  811. 
Stanislaus  Co.  v.  San  Joaquin,  etc 
(anal  &  Irr.  Co.,  192  U.  S.  201: 
1216. 
Stanley  v.  Bolt,  5  Wall.  119:  626. 
v.  Wabash,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  100  Mo. 
485:  21. 
Stackpole  v.  Halahan,  16  Mont.  40: 

7s;.  1290. 
Stacy  v.  Vermont,  etc.  R,  R.  Co.,  32 

Vt.  551:  908. 
StadN  r  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  22  Mont 

11  if  i:  784,  786. 
Stafford  v.  Bank,  16  How.  135:  1136. 
v.  Canal  &  B.  Co.,  17  How.  283: 

1136. 
v.   His  Creditors,  11  La.  Ann. 

470:  52L 
v.    Ingersol,   3    Hill,   38:    636: 

1057. 
v.    Mayor,    etc.,   7  John.   541: 
1048. 
Stamford  v.  Fisher,  140  N.  Y.  187: 

1058. 
Stanberry  v.  Nelson,  Wright(Ohio), 

700:  880. 
Standard  v.  Village  of  Industry,  55 

111.  App.  523:  1117,  1122. 
Stanley  v.  Wharton,  9  Price,  301: 

640,  991. 
Stanley   Co.  v.  Snuggs,  121  N.  C. 

:J94:  95. 
Stanley  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Coler,  96  Fed. 

284:  92,  127. 
Staples  v.  Bridgeport,  75  Conn.  509: 
1152. 
v.  Fox,  45  Miss.  667:  1049,  1056. 
v.   Somerville,    176  Mass.  237: 
1257. 
Starbird  v.  Brown,  84  Me.  238:  535. 
Starck  v.  Ins.  Co.,  7  Pa,  Co.  Ct.  511: 

731,  744,798.  914. 
Stari'i  v.  Genoa,  23  N.  Y.  439:  170. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Starks  v.  State,  38  Tex.  Crim.  App. 

State 

233:  769. 

Starr  v.  Camden,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  24 

v. 

N.  J.  L.  592:  1044. 

v.  State,  149  In d.  592:  557. 

V. 

State  v.  Abbott,  59  Neb.  106:  78, 79. 

V. 

v.  Absence,  4  Porter,  397:  933. 

v.  Adams,   51   N.   H.  568:  687, 

V. 

688,  1G64,  1066. 

V. 

v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  66  Minn. 

V. 

271:  158. 

v.  Addington,    2    Bailey,   516: 

V. 

554,  555. 

V. 

v.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  150  Mo.  113: 

426. 

V. 

v.  Ah  Sam,  15  Nev.  27:  201. 

v.  Aitken,  62  Neb.  428:  141,  302, 

V. 

429. 

v.  Akins,  18  Ohio  C.  C.  349:  890. 

V. 

v.  Alabama,    etc.    Ry.   Co.,  67 

V. 

Miss.  647:  964 

V. 

v.  Alexander,  14  Rich.  247:  466, 

V. 

482. 

v.  Algooil,  87  Tenn.  163:   432, 

V. 

925. 

V. 

v.  Allen,  43  Neb.  651:  711. 

T. 

v.  Allen,  14  Wash.  103:  555. 

V. 

v.  Allison,    155   Mo.   325:    685, 

V. 

1068. 

V. 

v.  Allston,  94  Tenn.  674:  427. 

V. 

v.  Aloe,  152  Mo.  466:  176. 

V. 

v.  Ames,  87  Minn.  23:  177,  363, 

V. 

606,  644. 

V. 

v.  Am.  Sugar  Ref.  Co.,  106  La. 

\. 

553:  203,  236,  238,  452. 

V. 

v.  Anaconda  Copper  Min.  Co., 

V. 

23  Mont.  498:  185,  203,  211. 

v.  Anderson,  63  Minn.  208:  267, 

V. 

469. 

v.  Anderson,  90  Wis.  550:  430. 

V. 

v.  Andrews,  64  Kan.  474:  72,  73, 

85,  86,  89. 

V. 

v.  Andrews,  20  Tex.  230:  443, 

V. 

4,39. 

v.  Angelo,  71  N.  H.  224:  534, 

771. 
Anslinger,  171  Mo.  600:  341, 

375,  391. 
Applegarth,  81  Md.  293:  299. 
Archibald,  43  Minn.  328:  514, 

527,  537. 
Arlin,  39  N.  H.  179:  1186. 
Armstrong,  30  Neb.  492: 1310. 
Arnold,   136    Mo.    446:    408, 

1002. 
Arnold,  31  Neb.  75:  448. 
Asbury  Park,  58  N.  J.  L.  604: 

216,  381. 
Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375:  141, 

156,  427. 
Atherton,  19  Nev.  332:  221, 

226. 
Atkin,  64  Kan.  174:  417. 
Atkins,  35  Ga.  319:  659,  708. 
Atkins,  104  La.  37:  250,  581. 
Atlantic  City,  56  N.  J.   L. 

232:  135,  136,  390. 
Atwood,  11  Wis.  422:  611. 
Aucuff,  6  Mo.  54:  798. 
,  Auditor,  41  Mo.  25:  641. 
Aulman,  76   Iowa,  624:  22a 
Ayers,  8  S.  D.  517:  303. 
Babcock,  21  Neb.  599:  844. 
Babcock,  23  Neb.  128:  436. 
Bacon,  14  S.  D.  394:  60,  168. 
Bair,  112  Iowa  466:  427. 
Baker,  47  Miss.  95:  979. 
Baker,  129  Mo.  482:  274. 
,  Baker,  55  Ohio  St.  1:  381. 
Baldwin,  45  Conn.  134:  443, 

445,  459,  545. 
,  Baltimore  Co.,  29   Md.  516: 

345,  632. 
.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  12 

Gill.  &J.  399:  844,853. 
Bank,  88  Iowa.  661:  883. 
,  Bank,  12  Rick  L.  609:  308, 

554. 


ccxn 


TABLE   OV   OASES    CITED. 


The  references  are  to  the  pages;  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  608;  Vol.  II,  pp.  60M815. 


..  Bank,  i&G  68:  1806. 
\.   Bank   Newborn,    1   Dev.  & 

Bat,  Eq,  819:  1084 
v.  Bank  o(  Md.,  G  G.  &.  J.  205: 

1087. 
v.  Bank  of  Smyrna,  2  Houst.  99: 

v.  Barbae,  8  Ind.  258:  340. 

v.  Barge,  82Minn  856:741,816, 

B28, 
c.  Bargus,  58  Ohio  St.  94:  427. 
v.  Barker,  110  Iowa.  93:  5,  6 
v.  Barker,  4  Kan.  379:  1192. 
v.  Barnes,  8  N.  D.  819:  302. 
v.  Barringer,  110  N.  C.  525:  MS, 

574, 
v.    Barrow,   30   La.   Ann.    657: 

49a 
v.  Bartlett,  30  Me.  132:  978. 
v.  Banco,  33  La.  Ann.  981:  222, 

v.   Baushausen,    49  Neb.    558: 

694  847*  885. 
v.   Bayonne,  5G   N.   J.   L.  297: 

1150,  1152. 
v.  Beach,  147  Ind.  74:  1180. 
v.  Beacom,  GG  Ohio  St.  491:  381, 

458. 
v.  Beard,  21  Nev.  218:  525. 
v.  Beasley,  5  Mo.  91:  798. 
v.    Beaufort,   39  S.  C.   5:    466, 

47  ),  914 
v.    Beck,   25  Nev.  G8:    59,  200, 

.  429. 
v.  Beck,  21  R.  I.  283:  741,  848, 

'JOG.  1313. 
v.  B  ,'.  D.  29:  137,  186, 

191,  211,  'JIG,  597. 
v.  Becton,  7  Baxter,  138:  956. 

B    Mo.  22  Utah,  432:  432. 
v.  Bedell,  67  N.  J.  L.  148:  273, 

v.  Bell,  3  Ired.  L.  500:  853. 
iell,  91  Wis.  271:  428. 


State  v.  Bellamy.  120  N.  C.  212:  524. 
v.  Belvidere,  85  N.J.  1*568 
v.  Beman,  15  Wash.  21:  501. 
v.  Bemis,  45  Neb.  724:  231,  436, 

445,  518,  524,  1040. 
v.  Beneke,  9  Iowa,  203:  145. 
v.  Bengseh,  170  Mo.  81:  302. 
v.  Benjamin,  2  Ore.  125:  482. 
v.  Bennett,  102  Mo.  350:  273. 
v.  Bentley,  39  Barb.  353:  731. 
v.  Bentley,    39  Neb.   353:  723. 

748. 
v.  Bentley,  23  N.  J.  L.  532:  1021. 
v.  Benzenberg,  101    Wis.   172: 

428. 
v.  Benzinger,  83  Md.  481:  306, 

458. 
v.  Bergen,  34  N.  J.  L.  438:  63a 
v.  Bergen  Co.,  52  N.  J.  L.  302: 

407. 
v.  Berkeley,  64  S.  C.   194:  404, 

405,  406. 
v.  Berman,  15  Wash.  24:  954 
v.  Bermudez,  12  La.  352:  115a 
v.  Bemheim,  19  Mont.  512:  260. 
v.  Berry,  12  Iowa,  58:  G3G. 
v.  Berry,  25  Mo.  355:  643. 
v.    Bersch,  83    Mo.    App.   657: 

1301. 
v.  Berschoff,  158  Ind.  349:  136. 
v.  Beswick,  13  R.  I.  211:  51 G. 

lethel,  3Tenn.  Cb.  107:  306. 
v.  Bigelow,  52  Minn.  307:  301. 
v.  Biggers,  108  N.  C.  760:  487. 
v.  Binnard,  21  Wash.  349:  487. 
v.  Bishop,  128  Mo.  373:  981. 
v.  Bixman,  1G2  Mo.  1:  429,  929. 
v.  Black,  34  S.  C.  194:  440. 
v.  I'.lackburn.Ol  Ark.  407:  1306. 
v.  Blackmore,104Mo.340:  1300. 
v.  Blackstone,  115  Mo.  424:  29a 
v.  Blair,  32  Ind.  313:  1108. 
v.  Hlend,  121  Ind.  514:  457, 458t 
v.  Blize,  37  Ore.  404:  178. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 
The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


CCXlll 


State   v.   Board,  2G  Ind.   522:  201, 
228. 
v.  Board   of  Com'rs,   140   Ind. 

506:  63,  435. 
v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  67  Minn. 

352:  274,  1308. 
v.  Board  of  Control,  85  Minn. 

165:  134.  137,  21G. 
v.  Board  of  Education,  7  Ohio 

C.  C.  152:  410. 
v.  Board  of  Education,  3  Ohio 
C  D.  703:  410. 
Bockstruck,  136  Mo.  335:  302. 
Boise,  5  Idaho,  519:  82,  83. 
Bolln,  10  Wyo.  439:  1117. 
Boogher,  71  Mo.  631:  581. 
Borden,  364  Mo.  221 :  256,  376. 
Bosworth,  13  Vt.  402:  895. 
Bo  wen,  16  Kan.  475:  873. 
Bowen,  54  Neb.  211:  234,  452, 

595. 
Bowers,  14  Ind.  195:  204,  228. 
Boyd,  2  G.  &  J.  374:  1077, 

1101. 
Boyd,  19  Nev.  43:  370,  398, 
402. 
Boyle,  10  Kan.  113:  55S,  681. 
Bradford,  36  Ga.  422:    641, 

1158,  1224. 
Bradshaw,  56  N.  J.  L.  1:  427. 
Bradt,  103  Tenn.  584:  199, 
577. 
Brandt,  41  Iowa,  593:  756, 797. 
Branin,  23  N.  J.  L.  484:  528. 
BiMssfield,   81  Mo.  151:  194, 

245. 
Brewer,  22  La.  Ann.  273:  555, 

758,  781. 
Brewster,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 

Cas.  551:  443. 
Brewster,  39  Ohio  St.  633: 
421,  435. 
Bridges,  22  Wash.  64:   547, 
1221. 


State  v.  Brinkman,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  165: 
141. 
v.  Brock,  66  S.  C.  357:  340. 
v.  Bronson,  115  Mo.  271:   200, 

210. 
v.  Brookover,  22  W.  Va.  214: 
551. 
Brown,  19Fla.  563:  577. 
Brown,  3  Heisk.  1:  811. 
Brown,  30  La.  Ann.  78:  1227. 
Brown,  41  La.  Ann.  771:  238, 

239,  240,  249. 
Brown,  48  La.  Ann.  1569:  483. 
Brown,  31  Me.  522:  974. 
Brown,  60  Ohio  St.  462:  354, 

355,  407. 
Brown,  33  S.  C.  151:  85,  93, 

126. 
Brown,  103  Tenn.  449:  200, 

250,  296,  435. 
Browne,  56  Minn.   269:  674, 

707,  717. 
Brownson,   94  Tex.  436:  13; 

132. 
Bruder,  35  Mo.  App.  475:  980. 
Bruner,  17  Mo.  App.  274:  880. 
Buchanan   Co.   Ct.,  41    Ma 

254:  1093. 
Buckley,  54  Ala.  599:  71,  78, 

91. 
Buckley,  17  Ohio  C.  C.  86: 

458. 
Buckley,  60  Ohio  St.  273:  382, 

458.  597,  598. 
Bucknian,  18  Fla.  267:  699, 

701. 
Bulkeley,  61  Conn.  287:  13, 

132. 
Bulling,  105  Mo.  204:  1182. 
Burdge,  95  Wis.  390:  151. 
Burdick,  6  Wyo.  448:  1290. 
Burgdoerfer,  107  Mo.  1:  212, 

394, 935. 
Burk,  88  Iowa,  661:  443,  564. 


I 


I'Ai-.i  1:   Di     .  asi  s   ci  n:n. 


Ti'v  referei  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  MJ08;  Vol  H,  pp  BOB  1815. 


v.  Burlington,  eto,  K.  R.  Co., 

60  Neb,  Til:  72 
v.  Burnett,  6  Beisk.  186:  857. 
v.  Bums.  88  Fla  387:   188,  369, 
\.  Burton, :: 3  Neb,  B38:  L35,  188. 
v.  Burton.  11  Wis.  50:  45a 
\.  Bush,  45  Kan.  188:  380. 
v.  Busk  irk,  18  Iud.    App.   G29: 

956. 
v.  Buswell,  40  Neb.    158:  298, 

i3ia 

v.  Butclier,  93  Tenn.  GT9:  518, 

5  :;,. 
v.  Cain,  B  W.  Va.  720:  447. 
v.  California  M.   Co.,   15  Nev. 

234:  42a 
t.  Call,  121  N.  C.  648:  427. 
v.  Camden,  58  N.  J.  L.  515:  95, 

516,518,  781. 
t.   Cain  Jen,    58   N.    J.    L.    575: 

781. 
v.  Caminade,  55  N.  J.  L.  4:  379, 

380,  388,  390. 
r.  Campbell,  50  Kan.  433:  301. 
t.  Campbell,  3  Tenn.  Cas.  355: 

890. 
v.  Campbell,  44  Wis.  529:  446, 

519,555 
t.  Canon,  106  Mo.  488:  815. 
v.  Canterbury,   28  N.    H.    195: 

687, 1064, 10G6. 
t.  Capdevielle,  104  La.  561:  134, 

135. 
t.  Carey,  4  Wash.  424:  427. 

arney,  20  Iowa,  82:  1121. 
v.  Carr,  129  Ind.  44:  G,  10. 
t.  Carron     Hill     Coal     Co..    4 

Wash.  422:  492,  518,  522. 
v.  'arson,  67  N.  J.  L.  178:  399. 
t.  Carson,  6  Wash.  250:  493,530, 

570. 

•  rU-r.  28  S.  C.  1:  498. 
7.  Casimere,  4:5  La.   Ann.  442: 


State  v.  Caesidy,  32  Minn.  835:  193, 
305 
v.  Cave,  20  Mont.  108:  731,  733. 

v.  Caeeau,  8  La  Ann.  109:  649, 

654,  85ft 
v.  Chamberlin,  87  N.  J.  L.  388: 

592. 
v.  Chambers,  93  N.  C.  600:  624, 

636,  632, 
v.  Chandler,  132  Mo.  155:  973. 
v.  Chapel,  63  Minn.  535:  295. 
v.  ( lhase,  5  H.  &  J.  303:  892, 893. 
v.  Chase,  5  Ohio  St.   528:  1112. 
v.  Cheetham,    17    Wash.  483: 

111,  464. 
v.  Cherry,  53  N.  J.  L   173:  302. 
v.  Cherry,  22  Utah  1 :    13,  132. 
v.  Cherry  Co.,  58  Neb.  734:  328. 
v.  Chester,  39  S.  C.  307:  68. 
v.  Chicago,  eta  R,  R,  Co,,  38 

Minn.  281:  796. 
v.  Cincinnati,  19  Ohio,  197:  460. 
v.  Cincinnati,  52  Ohio  St.  419: 

437,  444. 
v.  Cincinnati,  etc.  Co.,  21  Ohio 

C.  C.  218:  1159. 
v.  Cincinnati  Gas  Light  Co.,  18 

Ohio   St.   262:    1023,   1029, 

1037. 
v.  Citizens'  Bank,  52  La.  Ann. 

1086:  1007. 
v.  City  Council,  65  Minn.  298: 

1154. 
v.  Clapp,  50  Minn.  239:  5. 
v.  Clark,  5  Dutch.  96:  G64. 
v.  Clark,  54   Mo.  216:  513,  844. 
v.  Clark,  57  Mo.  25:  759. 
v.  Clark,  15  R,  I.  383:  579. 
v.  Clark,  30  Wash.  439:  427. 
v.  Clarke,  54  Mo.  17:  577, 582, 697. 
v.  Clarksville,  etc.  Co.,  2  Sneed, 

88:  712,  747,  754 
v.  Clayton,  53  N.  J.  L  277:  379, 

396. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


CCXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


State 
v. 


V. 


v.  Cleveland,  80  Mo.  108:  880. 

Click.  2  Ala,  26:  308,  1117, 

1131. 
Cline.  62  N.  J.  L.  489:  429. 
Clinton,  27  La.  Ann.  40:202, 

261. 
Clinton,  28  La.  Ann.  201:  580. 
Cloksey,  5  Sneed,  482:  881. 
Cobb,  44  Neb.  434:  469. 
Cole,  2  McCord,  117:  1136. 
Columbia    George,   39    Ore. 

127:  469. 
Commercial     Ins.    Co.,    158 

Ind.  680:  263. 
Commissioner,  140  Ind.  506: 

407. 
Commissioner,  37   N.   J.  L. 

228:  473.  852. 
Commissioners,  41  Kan.  630: 

214. 
Commissioners,  67  Minn.  359: 

199. 
Commissioners,  83  Minn.  65: 

200. 
Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  L. 

320:  593,  601. 
Commissioners,  2  Ohio,  C.  D. 

227:  528. 
Commissioners,   5  Ohio   St. 

497:  595. 
Commissioners,  54  Ohio  St. 

333:  6,  424. 
Commissioners,  4  Wis.  414: 

1193. 
Commissioners.  34  Wis.  162: 
732. 

Commissioners,  106  Wis.  584: 

525. 
Common    Council,  90  Wis. 

612:   10. 
Common   Council,   96    Wis. 

73:  470. 
Compson,  34  Ore.  25:  7,  132. 
Conelly,  66  N.  J.  L.  197:  388. 


State  v.  Conklin,  34  Wis.  21:  812. 
v.  Conkling,  19  Cal.  501:    515, 

564,  638. 
v.  Conley,   22    R.   I.   397:    764, 

797. 
v.  Connelly,   66  N.   J.   L.  197: 

278,  387. 
v.  Continental     Tobacco    Co., 

177  Mo.  1 :  426. 
v.  Cook,  20  Ohio  St.  252:  894. 
v.  Cook,  107  Tenn.  499:  426. 
v.  Cooke,  24  Minn.  247:  164,  17L 
v.  Cooler,   8    S.    E.   692:    1181, 

1187. 
v.  Cooley.   56   Minn.   540:   352, 

359,  365,  366,  401. 
v.  Cooley.  62  Minn.   183:  10C7. 
v.  Cooley,  65  Minn.  406:  171. 
v.  Cooper,  5  Blackf.  258:  927. 
v.  Coosaw  Mining  Co.,  47  Fed. 

225:  1021. 
v.  Copeland,  66  Minn.  315:  360. 
v.  Copeland,  3  R  L  33:  145,  601. 
v.  Corbett,  61  Ark.  226:  71,  92, 

93,  437,  438. 
v.  Corbett,  57  Minn.  345:   137, 
139,  428. 
Cordoza,  5  S.  C.  297:  926. 
Corkins,  123  Mo.  56:  843. 
Cornell,  50  Neb.  526:  448. 
Cornell,  53  Neb.  556:  661,  955. 
Cornell,  54  Neb.  72:  231,  236. 
Cornell,  54  Neb.  647:  781. 
Cornell,  59    Neb.   417:    134 

595. 
Corson,  59  Me.  137:  1182. 
Corson,  67  N.  J.  L.  178:  23a 
Corvvin,  4  Mo.  609:  638,  917. 
v.  Countryman,  57  Kan.  815: 

517,  519. 
v.  Co.  Com'rs.  13  Am.  &  Eng. 

Cor.  Cas.  203:  205,  223. 
v.  Co.  Com'rs,  28  Fla.  793:  84a 
v.  Co.  Com'rs,  29  Md.  516:  1119. 


ecxvi 


1  A.BLE    OP   OA8K8   01  n-'.l>. 


Itoa  references  aro  to  the  pa  b  :  Vol   U  PP  '  '• '  '■'•  Vol.  n,  pp.  008  1815. 


State  v.  Ca  Coni'rs,  *7  Minn. 
HJ6,  988. 
v.    Ca     foiiTrs.    198    Ma     127: 

v.  Ox  i  "in'r;.  47  Neb.  438:  875, 

County  Ct,  50   Ma  317:  339. 
County  Ct,  51  Mo.  82:  339. 
County  Ct.  53  Ma  188:  459. 
County  Ct,  109  Ma  531:  270, 

.  59a 

County  Ct  188  Mo.  -107:  908. 
County  Judge,  2  Iowa,  880: 

185,   193,  808,  003,  201.  0711. 
Court  Com.  Pleas.,  36  N.  J.  L. 

72:  171. 
Courtney,  73  Iowa,  G19:  520. 
Courtney.  27  Mont.  37 

Covington,  29  Ohio  St.  102: 

188,  L89. 
Covington,  85  &  C.  845:  847, 

855. 
Cowdery,  79  Minn.  94:  766. 
Cowles,  64  Ohio  St  162:  401. 
Craig,  23  Ind.  185:  481. 
Craig,  22  Ohio  C.  C.  441:  492, 

523. 
Cram,  16  Wis.  343:  852. 
Cramer,   58    N.    J.    L.   278: 
427. 
Crawford,  35  Ark.  237:  71,  95. 
Crawford,  11  Kan.  32:  558, 

68L 
Cress,  4  Jones  (N.  C),  421: 
555. 
,  Crook,  126  Ala.  600:  300. 
,  Cross,  68  Iowa,  180:  611. 
IS,  38  Kan.  GOO:  446. 
,  Cross,   44  W.  Va.  315:    434, 
796,  800. 

rase,  3G  Neb.  835:  111. 
.  (  r    vk-y.   33   La.    Ann.  783: 
851, 


State  v.   Cnisins.  57    N.  J.  L.   270: 
803,  557. 
v.  Cumberland,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 

40  Md  33:  433. 
v.  Cummins,  99  Term.  GG7:  579. 
v.Cunningham,  81   Wis.   440: 

47,  137. 
v.  Currens.  Ill  Wis.  431:  427. 
v.  Custer,  65  N.  C.  339:  756. 
v.  Cutshall,  110  N.  C.  538:  22. 
v.  Daley,    29    Conn.    272:    481, 

552,  556. 
v.  Dalon,   35    La.    Ann.    1141: 

851,  345,  581. 
v.  Daly,  40  Mo.   App.   184:  528. 
v.  Daniel,  28  La.  Ann.  38:  205. 
v.  Davis,  130  Ala.  148:  234,  292, 

578,  582,  597. 
v.  Davis,  22  La,  Ann.  77:  788. 
v.  Davis,  70  Md.  237:  322,  541, 

543,543. 
v.  Davis,  129  N.  C.  570:  535. 
v.  Davis,  55  Ohio  St.  15:  424. 
v.  De  Bar,  58  Mo.  395:  527. 
v.  Deets,  54  Kan.  504:  315. 
v.  De  Gress,  53  Tex.  387:  910. 
v.  Delaney,  55  N.  J.  L.  9:  379, 

380,  388. 
v.  Desforges,  47  La.  Ann.  1167: 

691. 
v.  Deshler,  25  N.  J.  L.  177:  750. 
v.  Des  Moines,  96  Iowa,  521:  397. 
v.  Deuel,  63  Kan.  811:  GS9.  795. 
v.  Dews,  R  M.  Charlt.  400:  13, 

21. 
v.  Dexter,  10  R.  I.  341:  13. 
v.  Diamond  Mills  P.  Co.,  63  N. 

J.  Eq.  Ill:  302. 
v.  Dickerman,    16    Mont.    278: 

1159. 
v.  Dillon,  32  Fla.  545:  576,  578, 

.7.17. 
v.  Dinnisse,    109   Mo.  434:  815, 

82a 


TABLE    OF    CASES   CITED. 


CCXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  District  Court,  61    Minn, 
542:  372,  389. 
v.  District  Court,  75  Minn.  292: 

1123. 
v.  District  Court,  14  Mont.  452: 

530,  955. 
v.  District  Court,  26  Mont.  396: 

731,  748,  749,  750. 
v.  Dist.  Narragansett,  16  R.  I. 

424:  134,  1145. 
v.  Doherty,  3  Idaho,  384:  88,89, 

215. 
v.  Doherty,  60  Me.  504:  640. 
v.  Dohney,  72  Vt.  260:  713,  956. 
v.  Dombaugh,  20  Ohio  St.  173: 

927. 
v.  Donavan,  20  Nev,  75:  429. 
v.  Donehey,  8  Iowa,  396:   316, 

317. 
v.  Donnelly,  20  Nev.  214:  469, 

847. 
v.  Dorland,  56  N.  J.  L.  364:  368, 

392. 
v.  Dorr,  82  Me.  212:  177. 
v.  Dorsey  Co.,  28  Ark.  378:  608. 
v.  Dotson,   26    Mont.   305:  777, 

778,  779. 
v.  Douglass,  33  N.  J.  L.  333 :  679. 
v.  Douglass,  5  Sneed,  608:  671, 
881. 
Dousraan,  28  Wis.  541:  428, 

595. 
Downs,  60  Kan.  788:  402. 
Downs,  164  Mo.  471:  847,  852. 
Drowne,  20  R.   L   302:  914, 

1052. 
Dudley,  1  Ohio  St.  437:  567. 
Duestrow,  137  Mo.  44:  1182. 
Duff,  80  Wis.  13:  1170. 
Duffy,  7  Nev.  342:  342,  344 
Duggan,  15  R.  I.  403:  430,  706. 
Duke,  42  Tex.  455:  592. 
Duluth  G.  &  W.  Co.,  76  Minn. 
96:  603. 


v. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 


V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 
V 

V 
V, 
V. 


State  v.  Duncan,  16  Lea,  79:  482. 
Dunn,  66  Kan.  483:  301. 
Dunning,  9  Ind.  20:  314,  317, 

950. 
Dupuis,  18  Ore.  372:  303,  466. 
Durrah,  152  Mo.  522:  429. 
Easton,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  36  N. 

J.  L.  181:  1044. 
Eaves,  106  N.  C.  752:  574, 575. 
Ebbs,  S9  Mo.  App.  95:  711, 

847,  854. 
Edwards,  136  Mo.  360:  541. 
Edwards,  162  Mo.  660:  1311. 
Egan,  64  Minn.  331:  527,529. 
,  Eidson,  76  Tex.  302:  775. 
Elizabeth,  40  N.  J.  L.  278: 

582. 
Elizabeth,  56  N.  J.  L.  71 :  398. 
Elizabeth,   59  N.  J.  L.  134: 

1302. 
Elk  Co.  Com'rs,  21  Nev.  19: 

526. 
Elk  Island  Boom  Co.,  41  W. 

Va.  796:  1013. 
Ellet,  47  Ohio  St.  90:  354, 407. 
El v ins,  32  N.  J.  L.  362:  204 
Emery,  55  Ohio  St.  364:  957. 
Engle,  21  N.  J.  L.  347:   757, 

766. 
Ennis,  79  Mo.  App.  12:  815, 

827. 
Eskew,  64  Neb.  600:  236. 
Eskridge,  1  Swan,  413:  674 

924,  947. 
Estep,  66  Kan.  416:  490. 
Exnicios,  33  ;La,  Ann.  253: 

251,  581. 
Fackler,  91  Wis.  418: 144, 585. 
Fagan,  22  La.  Ann.  545:  104 

925. 
Farmers'  &  M.  Ins.  Co.,  59 

Neb.  1:  429. 
Farrell,   23    Mo.    App.    176: 
1297. 


v. 


ccxvm 


1  \i:i  E    OF    casts    OITKD. 


!      ea:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-608;  VoL  H,  pp.  605-1815. 


tt,  17  Wash.  188:  470, 
v.  Ferguson,  104  La,  219:  193, 

\.  Fernandez,  89  La.  Ann.  538: 

671,  814 
v.  Ferris,  58  Ohio  St.  814:  427. 
v.  Field,  17  Ma  529:  153. 
v.  Field,  112  Ma  554:  S84. 
v.  Field,  119  Mo.  593:  57,84,86, 

429,  567. 
v.  Fields.  2  Bailey,  554:  928. 
v.  Fire  Creek  Coal  &  Coke  Co., 

33  W.  Va.  lss:  .117. 
v   Fi  eman's  Fund  Ins.  Co.,  152 

Mo.  1:  302. 
v.  Fisher,  119  Mo.  344:  1313. 
v.  Fitzporter,  17  Mo.  App.  271: 

274,  E  .  -. 
v.  Fleming.  147  Mo.  1:  375,  88a 
v.  Fletcher,  5  X.  II.  257:  933. 
v.  Fletcher.  1  R.  I.  193:  555. 
v.  Flint,  61  Minn.  539:  19. 
v.  Folk,  89  Minn.  269:  1308. 
v.  Foote,  11  Wis.  14:  101,  311, 

317. 
v.  Forest,  7  Wash.  54:  470. 
v.  Forkner,  94  Iowa,  1:  171,  291. 

423. 
v.  Forney,  21  Neb.  223:  813. 
v.  Foster,  22  R.  I.  103:  703,  9S1. 
v.  Fragiacomo,    71    Miss.    417: 

551. 
v.  Francis,  20  Kan.  724:  72,  78, 

84,  87,  91,  92. 
v.  Frank,  60  Neb.  327:  72,73,  75, 

77,  79,  92,  399,  404,  400. 
v.  Frank,  01  Neb.  079:  72,  7:!,  75, 

79,80,  92.  -101,  406,  440. 
v.  Franklin.  59  X.  J.  L.  100:  579, 

v.  Franklin  Co.  Savings  Bank, 

74  Vt.  240:   909. 
v.  F.  ;.'G:  527,020. 


State  v.  Frazier,  30  Ore.  178:  210. 
v.  Frederiok,  45  Ark.  347:  S7S. 
v.  Fremont,  etc.   R.  R.  Co.,  00 

Neb.  749:  72. 
v.  French,  17  Mont.  54:  13, 132. 
v.   Frost,    103  Tenn.    635:    180; 

1029. 
v.  Fury.  65  X.  J.  L.  1:  380,  388. 
v.  Gaines,  1  Lea,  734:  448. 
v.  ( larbroski, 111  Iowa,  496:  424. 
v.  Garland,  7  Ired.  L.  48:  931. 
v.  Garrett,   29  La,   Ann.   637: 

201,  203,  207,  242. 
v.    Garrett,   76  Mo.    App.   295: 

914,  1310. 
v.  Garrity,  98  Iowa,  101:  1149, 

1153. 
v.  Garver,  13  Ohio  C.  D.  140: 

407. 
v.  Garver,  60  Ohio  St.  555:  407. 
v.  Gay,  18  Mont.  51:1180. 
v.  Geiger.  05  Mo.  300:  448. 
v.  George,  22  Ore.  142:  6,  7. 
v.  Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439:  133, 

135,  137,  139,  177,  185,  190, 

221,  230,  291,  446,  840. 
v.  Gibbs,  60  S.  C.  500:  189. 
v.  Gibson,  55  N.  J.  L.  11:  370,. 

380,  388. 
v.  Gilliam,  18  Mont.  94:  1190, 

1210. 
v.  Gillick,  7  Iowa,  287:  1121. 
v.  Gilman,  33  W.  Va,  146:  1010. 
v.  Glenn,  18  Nev.  39:  59,  97. 
v.  Glenn,  47  X.  J.  L.  105:  390. 
v.  Glen  Ridge,  59  N.  J.  L.  201: 

775. 
v.  Gloucester  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L*. 

585:  149,  158,  291,  651. 
v.  Goetze,  22  Wis.  363:  531,  661, 

671. 
v.  Goff,  100  La.  270:  306,  579. 
v.  Goodrich,  84  Wis.  359:  993. 
v.  Goodwill,  33  W.  Va.  179:  417. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  Gorby,  122  Ind.  17:  5,  7. 
v.  Gouss,  85  Iowa,  21 :  428. 
v.  Goyette,  11  R.  I.  592:  876. 
v.  Grace,  20  Ore.  154:  1302. 
v.   Grady,  34   Conn.  US:    481, 

484. 
v.  Graham,  38   Ark.  519:  959, 

905. 
v.  Graham,  16  Neb.  74:  401. 
v.    Granneman,   132   Mo.   326: 

340,  419. 
v.  Grassle,  74  Mo.  App.  313:  980. 
v.  Great  Western  C.  &  T.  Co., 

171  Mo.  634:  256. 
v.  Green,  :J6  Fla.  154:  72,  85,  88, 

185,  215,  429,  453,  651. 
v.  Gregory,  170  Mo.  598:  429. 
v.  Griffen,  132  Ala.  47:  277. 
v.  Gritzner,  134  Mo.  512:  21,  429, 

952,  964,  965. 
v.  Groves,  119  N.  C.  822:  830. 
v.  Guilbert,560hioSt.575:6,12. 
v.  Guiney,  55  Kan.  532:  432,  451. 
v.  Gulley,  41  Ore.  318:  498. 
v.  Gumber,  37  Wis.  298:  445, 555, 

561. 
v.  Gumbler,  37  Wis.  298:  481. 
v.  Gupton,  8  Ired.  271:  755. 
v.  Guttenberg,  62  N.  J.  L.  005: 

363,  390,  398. 
v.  Guttenberg,  63  N.  J.  L.  616: 
.       390. 

v.  Haas,  2  N.  D.  202:  302. 
v.  Had  don  field  &  C  Turnpike 

Co.,  65  N.  J.  L.  97:  624. 
v.  Hagood,  13  G.  C.  46:  68,  87. 
v.  Halbert,  14  Wash.  306:   242. 
v.  Hall,  2  Bailey,  151:  982. 
v.  Halliday,  63  Ohio  St.  165:  322, 

463,  541. 
v.  Hal  lock,  14Nev.  202:  458. 
v.  Hallock,  19  Nev.  384:  256. 
v.  Hamblin,  4  Rich.  (N.  S.)  1: 
481,  485. 
O 


State  v.  Hamilton,  47  Ohio  St.  52: 

1024. 
v.  Hammer,  42  N.  J.   L.  435: 

368. 
v.  Hammett,  7  Ark.  492:  872. 
v.  Hammond,  66  S.  C.  219:  340, 

425. 
v.  Hammond,  66  S.  C.  300:  340, 

425. 
v.  Hanger,  5  Ark.  412:  598. 
v.  Hannibal,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  113 

Mo.  297:  1117,  1119. 
v.  Hannibal,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  135 

Mo.  618:  773,  889. 
v.  Harding,  20  Wash.  556:  487, 

981. 
v.  Hardman,  16  Ind.  App.  357: 

558. 
v.  Harkness,  1  Brev.  276:  674. 
v.  Harney,  168  Mo.  167:  429. 
v.  Harper,  30  S.  C.  586:  1233. 
v.  Harris,  47  La.  Ann.  3S6:  122. 
v.  Harris,  19  Nev.  222:  587. 
v.  Harris,  17  Ohio  St.  608:  1115, 

1119. 
v.  Harrison,  11  La.  Ann.  722: 

245. 
v.  Hartford   Fire   Ins.    Co.,    99 

Ala.  221:  230,  5S5,  652, 
v.  Harvey,  141  Mo.  343:  829. 
v.  Haskell  Co.,  40  Kan.  65:  265. 
v.  Hastings,  24  Minn.  78:  72,  85, 

608. 
v.  Hatchaway,  115  Mo.  36:  10. 
v.  Haun,  7  Kan.  App.  509:  301. 

428. 
v.  Haverly.  63  Neb.  87:  267.  432. 
v.  Hay,  45  Neb.  321:  10,  511. 
v.  Hayes,  78  Mo.  307:  876. 
v.  Hayes,  13  Mont.  116:  964,  965. 
v.  Hayes,  64  N.  H  264:  166. 
v.  Haynes,  72  Mo.  377:  950. 
v.  Hays,  49  Mo.  604:  925. 
v.  Hays,  78  Mo.  600:  956. 


i  cxx 


TAB1  i:   OF   OASES   01  1 1  l >- 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I.  pp  i  808;  Vol.  n,  pp.  C05-1315. 


State  v.  Eegemaa,  'J  Penn.  (Del.) 

117. 
e.  Beidorn,  71  Mo.  410:  544, 
v.  Beioeman,  80  Wis.  858:  158. 
v.  Eeldenbrand,  02  Neb.  186: 

211. 
v.  Belms,  186  Ind.  188: 557, 120& 
r.  Belmes,  S  N.  J,  L  1050:  838. 
x.  Bemaw,  70  Mo,  441:  697,79a 
..  Benderson,  160  Mo.  190:  487. 
v.   Benderson,  4  Wyo.  533:  13, 

182. 
v.  Bendrix,  98  Mo.  374:  433. 
v.    Henry,   28   Wash,    38:    579, 

1838. 
v.  Berrmann,  75  Mo.  340:  359, 

374,  391,  401.  402.  403. 
v.  Bey  ward,  3  Rich.  389:  1193. 
v.  Hickman,  11  Mont.  541:  931, 

1072. 
v.  Biggins,    185  Mo.  364:  5,  8, 

v.  Bill,  147  Mo.  63:  415. 

v.  Bi! mantel,  21  Wis,  566:  1143. 

v.  Hinchman,  27  Pa.  St.  479: 

866. 
v.  Hinman,  65  N.  B.  103:  427. 
v.  Ilirzel,  137  Mo.  435:  444. 
v.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  ISO:  106, 

339. 
v.  Boadley,  20  Nev.  317:  87a 
v.  Iloagland,  51   N.    J.   L.  62: 

v.  Hobe,  106  Wis.  411:  530. 
v.    Boboken,  52  N.  J.  L.  88: 

1302. 
v.   Hocker,  36  Fla.  358:  72,  94, 

100,  183,  215. 
v.  lloeffner,  9  Wash.  680:  498. 
•..  Bogriever,  158  Ind.  652:  981. 
v.    Eolcomb,  40  Neb.  88:  888, 

39a 

v.   Bolcomb,    10  Neb.  012:  297. 
v.  Bol  ler,  70  Miss.  158:  111. 


sen,-  v.  Bolman,  3  MoCord,  306: 

88a 

v.  Holmes.  115  Mich.  457:  784. 
v.  Holmes,  68  N.  J.  L.  192:  302, 

sea 

v.  Holt,  69  Minn.  423:  469. 

v.  Hoover,  58  N.  J.  L.  334:  394. 

v.  Horgan,  55  Minn.  188:  1315. 

v.  Borner,  34  Md.  569:  1119. 
v.  Borsey,  14  Ind.  185:  481,  484. 
v.  Boskins,  106  Tenn.  430:  250. 
v.  Bostetter,  137  Mo.  636:   880, 

1312. 
v.  Howard,  137  Mo.  289:  973. 
v.  Howe,  28  Neb.  618:  500. 
v.  Howe.  95  Wis.  530:  524. 
v.  Howell,  26  Nev.  93:  96. 
v.  Hudson  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  12: 

145. 
v.  Hudson  Co.,  52  N.  J.  L.  398: 

171,  360. 
v.  Hughes.    104  Mo.  459:   302, 

429. 
v.    Humboldt  Co.    Com'rs,   21 

Nev.  235:  279,  579,  582. 
v.  Hunter,  69  Ark.  548:  455. 
v.  Burds,  19  Neb.  316:  252,  581. 
v.  Hyde,  121  Ind.  20:  5,  6. 
v.  Indiana,  etc.  R.  R,  Co.,  133 

I1L  69:  966. 
v.   Ingersol,  17  Wis.   631:   443, 

459,  516,  555 
v.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  19  Atl. 

913:  928. 
v.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  73  Me. 

278:  868. 
v.  Jackson,  39  Me.  291:  624. 
v.  Jackson,  105  Mo.  196:  1182. 
v.  Jacksonville  Terminal  Co.,  41 

Fla.  363:  260,  366,  428,  693, 

720,  752,  760,  1305. 
v.  Jaeger,  03  Mo.  403:  918. 
v.  Jennings,  98  Mo.  493:  981. 
v.  Jensen,  86  Minn.  19:  509. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


CCXX1 


The  rererences  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 

v.  Kelley,  34  N.  J.  L.  75:  473, 

492,  516,  679. 
,  Kelsey,  89  Mo.  623:  972. 
,  Kempf,  69  Wis.  470:  1029. 
,  Kenney,  11  Mont.  553:  1161. 
Kennie,  24  Mont.  45:  1305. 
Kent,  4  N.  D.  577:  1154. 
Keokuk  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  153 

Mo.  157:  1006. 
Ketler,  65  Ohio  St.  558:  392. 
Kibling,  63  Vt.  636:  579. 
Kiesewetter,  45  Ohio  St.  254: 

72.  78,  79. 
King,  37  Iowa,  462:  158,  363. 
King,  12  La.  Ann.  593:  555. 
King,  44  Ma  283:  663,  674, 

717,  729. 
King,  136  Mo.  309:  1154 
King,  28  Mont.  268:  135. 
King,  104  Tenn.  156:  466,  562. 
Kingsley,  108  Mo.  135:  302. 
Kinne,  41  N.  H.  238:  931,  932. 
K'nsley,  10  Mont.  537:  1184. 
Kirk,  74  Ind.  554:  956. 
Knowles,90  Md.  646:  1154. 
Kolsem,   130  Ind.   434:   191. 

300,  339. 
Koshland,  25  Ore.  178:  191, 

230. 
Krebs.  64  N.  C.  604:  1035. 
Kreraer,  62  N.  J.  L.  483:  380, 

388. 
Kreutzberg,114  Wis.530:  418. 
Krost,  140  Ind.  41:  407. 
Krueger,  134  Mo.  262:   816, 

900. 
Kuntz,  21  OhioC.  C.  261:  411. 
Kyle,  166  Mo.  287:  1184. 
Labatut,   39  La.   Ann.   513: 

527,  533. 
La  Gra\e,  23  Nev.  120:  954. 
La  Grave,  23  Nev.  373:  501. 
Laiche,  105  La.  84:  57. 
Lammers,  113  Wis.  398: 1302. 


State  v.  Jernigan,  3  Murph.  18:  794. 

State 

v.  Jersey  City,  54  N.  J.  L.  437: 

1314. 

v. 

v.  Jersey  City,  57  N.  J.  L.  293: 

V. 

1154. 

V. 

v.  Jersey  City,  58  N.  J.  L.  262: 

V. 

429. 

V. 

v.  Johnson,  26  Ark.  281:   123. 

V. 

v.  Johnson,  61  Kan.  803:  5,  6. 

v.  Johnson,  74  Minn.  381:  783, 

V. 

1304, 

V. 

v.  Johnson,  77  Minn.  453:  354, 

V. 

393. 

v.  Johnson,  86  Minn.   121:  429. 

V. 

v.  Johnson,  20  Mont.  367:  749, 

V. 

769. 

V. 

v.  Johnson,  105  Wis.  90:  1146. 

v.  Jones,  22  Ark.  331:  1054. 

V. 

v.  Jones,  21  Md.  432:  1287. 

V. 

v.  Jones,  102  Mo.  305:  730,  741, 

V. 

914. 

V. 

t.  Jones,  22  Ohio  C.  C.  682:  79. 

V. 

v.  Jones,  66  Ohio  St.  453:  381, 

V. 

458. 

V. 

v.  Jones,  6  Wash.  452:  67,  76. 

V. 

v.  Judge,  12  La  Ann.  777:  884. 

V. 

v.  Judge,  14  La.  Ann.  4S6:  316, 

458. 

V. 

v.  Judge,  29  La  Ann.  223:  47. 

v.  Judge,  37  La.  Ann.  578:  520. 

V. 

v.  Judge,  38  Mo.  529:  530. 

V. 

v.  Judges,  21  Ohio  St.  1:  349, 

.     364,  625,  633. 

V. 

v.   Justus,   85  Minn.  279:  295, 

V. 

418,  579,  733,  797,  803. 

V. 

v.  Kalb,  50  Wis.  178:  1194 

v.  Kantler,  33  Minn.  69:  577. 

V. 

v.  Karnes,  78  Mo.  App.  51: 1305. 

V. 

v.  Kates,  149  Ind.  46:  524 

V. 

v.  Kearney,  49  Neb.  325:  436, 

440,  568,  1159,  1199. 

V. 

•v.  Kearney,  49  Neb.  337:  1158, 

V. 

1159. 

V. 

-v.  Keith,  63  N.  C.  140:  1178. 

V. 

ccxx  ; 


i  \r.ii;   OF   CASKS   CITED. 


renoee  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  1.  pp.  I  808;  V6L  11,  pp.  800  1815, 


- 


v.  Lancashire  Fire  tna  ( So.,  68 

Ark.  166:  747,880,88a 
Lancaster  Co.,   IT   Neb,  ST: 

■  251. 
Larohe,  105  La  84:87. 
Larson,  89  Mum.  138:  1309. 
Las  «i  r. '.H'axt.  584:  186,190, 

205. 
La  V.iquo.  17  -Minn.  10(5:  229, 

269. 
Lean,  9  Wis  284:  818,  624 
1.  17  Ma  426:  L183. 
16  La.  400:  301. 
.  Lee.  l:::  Mo,  143:  129. 
Lewelling,  51  Kan.  562:  268, 

.  Lowin,  53  Kan.  679:  297. 
.  Lewis.  5  Mo.  App  465:  534. 

tke,  '.i  Neb.  462:  87. 
.  Lincoln   Trust  Co.,  144  Mo. 

152,  954,  1035. 
.  Lindquist.77  Minn.  540:  527, 

.  Lindsay,  103  Tenn.  625:  137. 
.  Linn  Co..  25  Ore.   503:    288, 

504,  1076. 
.  Little  Rock,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 
31  Ark.  701:  71. 
Loftin,  2  Dev.  &  Bat.  31:  917. 
Long,  21  Mont.  26:    86,  96, 

338,  410. 
Long.  78  N.  C.  571:  555. 
Long  Branch  Com'rs,  59  N. 

J.  L.  146:  394, 
Looker,  54  Kan.  227:  243. 
Loomia,  115  Mo.  307:  417. 
Lovell,   23   Iowa,  301:    964, 
967. 
Loyd,  2  Ind.  659:  555. 
Mace.  5  Md   337:  757,  1054. 
Macklin,   41  Mo.  App.  335: 

Macon  Co/.Cfc,  41   Mm.  158: 

4  (;u  I 


State  v.  Madison,  15  Wis.  80:  1199. 
v.  Madson,  43  Mum.  438:    L91, 

205.  281,  283,  236. 
v.  Maggard,  80  Mo.   App.  286: 

731,  733 
v.  Ma-ill,   1   Wash.   C.   C.  463: 

757. 
v.  Manchester  Savings  Bank, 

71  N.  11.  535:  1002. 
v.  Mann,  21  Wis.  684:  710. 
v.  Mann,  76  Wis.  469:  423. 
v.  Manning,  11  Tex.  402:  1182. 
v.  Mansel,  52  3.  C.  468:  555. 
v.  Manson,  105  Tenn.  232:  703 

717.  1300, 
v.  Marsh,  37  Ark.  356:  577. 
v.   Marshall,  48  Mo.  App.  560: 

741. 
v.  Marshall,  64  N.  H.  549:  1315. 
v.  Marshall,  13  Tex.  55:  983. 
v.  Martin,  68  Vt.  93:  498,  1052 
v.  Mason,  153  Mo.  23:  135,  374, 

388,  445.  521.  916. 
v.  Mason,   155  Mo.  486:   57,   92, 

108.  131,  302,  374,  388,  933. 
v.  Massey,  103  N.  C.  356:  481. 
v.    Mayhew,   2  Gill,   487:    887, 

888. 
v.  Maynard,  14  111.  419:  1051. 
v.  Mayor,  35  N.  J.   L.  196:  660, 

709,  711,748. 
v.  Mayor.  5  Port.  279:  1033. 
v.  McBride,  64  Neb.  547:  784. 
v.  McCance.  110  Mo.  398:  964, 

1277. 
v.  McCann,  4  Lea,  1:  188,  250. 
v.  McCann,  21  Ohio  St.  198:342. 
v.  McCary,  128  Ala.  L39:  299. 
v.  McConnell,  3  Lea,  332:    84. 

201.  222,  224. 
v.  McCoy, 86  Minn.  149:  497. 
v.  McCoy,  2  Speers,  711:  756. 
v.  McCracken,42Tex.  383:  188„ 

796. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


CCXX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  McCurdy,  62  Minn.  509:  461, 

466,  467,  530. 

v.  McFetridge,  64  Wis.  130: 1002. 

v.  McGarry,  21  Wis.  496:  821. 

v.  McGovern,     100    Wis.     666: 

1237. 
v.  McGowan,  138  Mo.   187:  585, 

955,  1301. 
v.  McGraw,  13  Wash.  311:  157. 
v.  McGuire,  24  Ore.  366:  1297. 
v.  McLain,   49  Mo.    App.   398: 

730,  1277. 
y.  McLain,  92  Mo.  App.  456:  842. 
v.  McLean,  9  Wis.  292:  1139. 
v.  McLelland,  18  Neb.  236:  72, 

78,  84,  867. 
v.  McMahon,  62  Minn.  110:  428. 
v.  McMahon,  65  Minn.  453:  713, 

741. 
v.  McMillan,  69  Vt.  105:  857. 
v.  McMinville,  106  Tenn.  384: 

304. 
v.  McNally,  67  Ark.  580:  1158. 
v.  McPeak,  31  Neb.  139:  1198. 
v.  McSpaden,  137  Mo.  628:  1312. 
v.  Mead,  71  Mo.  266:  55, 108, 200. 
v.  Meehany,  62  Conn.  126: 
v.  Meek,  26  Wash.  405:  497,574, 

775. 
v.  Meier,  72  Mo.  App.  618:  12. 
v.  Mercantile  Bank,  95   Tenn. 

212:  791,  1008. 
v.  Messenger,     27    Minn.    119: 

1283,  1285. 
v.  Messmore,  14  Wis.  163:  319. 
v.  Meyers,  56  Ohio  St.  340:  965, 

972. 
v.  Michel,  52  La.  Ann.  936:  107, 

108,  336, 1302. 
v.  Milburn,  9  Gill,  105:  931. 
v.  Miles,  2  Nott  &  McC.  1:  756. 
v.  Miller,  58  Ind.  399:  484. 
v.  Miller,  140  Ind.  168:  855. 
v.  Miller,  66  Minn.  90:  424. 


v. 

V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 

V. 


State  v.  Miller,  45  Mo.  495:  188, 191, 
205,  228. 
v.  Miller,  100  Mo.  439:  185,  191, 

247,  370,  374,  410,  447. 
v.  Miller,  30  N.  J.  L.  368:  533. 
v.  Miller,  3  Penn.  (Del.)  518:  760. 
Miller,  23  Wis.  634:  947. 
Mills,  34  N.  J.  L.  177:  528,1002. 
Mines,  38  W.  Va.  125:  447, 

524,  585. 
Minor,  79  Minn.  201 :  372,  393. 
Mister,  5  Md.  11:  845. 
Mitchell,  5  Ired.  L.  350:  756. 
Mitchell,  50  Kan.  289:  731. 
Mitchell,  97  Me.  66:  425,  427, 

597,  599. 
Mitchell,  17  Mont.  67:  235. 
Mitchell,  31  Ohio  St.  592:  401, 

402. 
Monger,  111  N.  C.  675:  463, 

466. 
Montclair  Ry.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L. 

328:  1044. 
Moore,  121  Ind.  116:  568. 
Moore,  107  Mo.  78:  171,  360, 

423. 
Moore,  121  Mo.  514:  1185. 
.  Moore,  96  Mo.  App.  431 :  707, 

909. 
.  Moore,  104  N.  C.  714: 134,  429. 
.  Moore,  37  Neb.  13:  73,  88. 
.  Moore,  45  Neb.  12:  651,  1030. 
.  Moore,  48  Neb.  870:  302,  448, 

.•)09. 
.  Moore,  50  Neb.  88:  782. 
.  Moore,  54  N.  J.  L.  121:  379, 

380,  389. 
•.  Moore,  37  Ore.  536:  502. 
'.  Moores,  55  Neb.  480:  139. 
r.  Mooty,3  Hill  (S.  C.)  187:  845. 
r.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  64  Neb.  679: 

1315. 
r.  Morehouse,  5  N.  D.  406:  571, 
573,  795. 


CCXX1V 


TABLE    OF   0A8ES   OITED. 


Tlu>  rrf.T.m.-.  s  .-iro  to  Hie  pftgW   v"'    U  IT    I  B08j  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1815. 


v.  Morgan,  112  Mo.  809:  00."). 

v.  Morgan,  'J  s.  |>.  39:  184,  186, 

188,  i:'!.  805,  899,  980,  248. 

v.  Morrill.  If.  Ark-.  884:  947. 
v.  Morris  (.'anal.  etc*.  Co.,  13  N. 

.1.  1..  198: 
v.  Morrow,  96  Mo.  181:668,  9:2. 
v.  Mounts,  86  W.  Va  179:  308, 

711,  1300. 
v.  Moyer,  17  Wash.  643:  470. 
v.  Mrozinski.  5'.i  Minn.  465:  137. 
v.  Murlm.  187  Mo.  897:  132,751. 
v.  Murphy,  101  Term.  515:  1298. 
v.  Myers,   10  Iowa,  448:   756 
%\  Myers,  14(5  Ind  36:  706,  757. 
v.  Mylod,  20  R.  I.  032:  749,  761, 

i  na 

v.  N.  1>.  Children's  Home  Soc., 
10  N.  U  1C3: 
Neeley,       -  -::  1233. 

:.  9  1  >hio  st.  88 

114. 

Newark,  3  Dutch.  185:  013. 

rk,  95  N.J.  L.  399:  550. 

Newark,  28  N.  J.  L.  491:  474. 

Newark,  34  N.  J.  L,  236:  204, 

Newark,  53  N.  J.  L.  4:  395. 
Newark.  57  N.  J.  L.  83:  368, 

392. 
Newark,  57  X.  .7.  L.  298:  273, 

323,  379,  3-  390,  442, 

New  bold,  56  Kan.  71:  315. 
New  Brunswick,  47  N.  J.  L. 

479: 
Newman,  24   Neb.  40:  1310. 
Newton,   59    Ind.    173:    577, 

New  York,  etc.  R.  R,  Co.,  71 

Conn.  43:   19. 
Nichols.  30  La.  Ann.,  Pt  II, 

Nichols,  88    Wash.  028:  419. 


State  v.  Nine  Justices,  90  Tenn.  722: 

157:  848. 
v.  Noblesville,  157  Ind.  31:  500. 
v.  Nolil,  113  Wis.  15:  158. 
v.  Nomland.  3  N.  D.  427:  280. 
v.  Nord,  73  Minn.  1:  1137,  1138. 
v.  Norris,  70  Md.  91:   185,  191, 

296. 
v.  Norris,  37  Neb.  299:  600,  1130, 

1290. 
v.  Northampton   Tp.,  52  N.  J. 

L.  490:  217,  272. 
v.  Northern,  etc.    Ry.   Co.,    18 

Md.  193:  1054. 
v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  27 

Mont.   119:  586 
v.  North  Plaintield,  63  N.  J.  L. 

61:  266 
v.  Norton,  23  N.  J.  L.  33:  472, 

sea 

v.  Norwood,    12  Md.    195:  550, 

1151).  1109. 
v.  Noyes,  47  Me.  189:  950,  1193, 

11 '.H. 
v.  Noyes,  30  N.  TJ.  279:  172. 
v.  Nutt,  Phil.  L.  20:  554. 
v.  O'Brien,  47  Ohio  St.  464:  309, 

325. 
v.  O'Conner,  13  La.  Ann.  486: 

555. 
v.  O'Connor,  81  Minn.  79:  651. 
v.  O'Connor,  54  N.  J.  L.  36:  397, 

424. 
v.  OVonnor,  96  Tex.  481:  694 
v.  O'Donnell,  60  N.    J.   L.   85: 

389. 
v.  Oftedal,  72  Minn.  498:  306. 
v.    Ohio   Oil   Co.,  150  Ind.  21: 

656 
v.  dinger,  109  Iowa.  669:  1038. 
v.  Oliver,  12  Wash.  517:  555. 
v.  Olsen,  58  Minn.  1:  240. 
v.  O'Neill  84  Wis.  l  l!j:  107, 170, 

172. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXXV 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  Orange,  60  N.  J.  L.  Ill:  157, 

389. 
v.  Order  of  Elks,  69  Miss.  895: 

516,  518,  519,  551. 
Orrick,  106  Mo.  111:302,  429. 
Oskins,  28  Ind.  364:  684. 
Otis,  68  N.  J.  L  64: 407, 1145. 
Owen,  7  Wyo.  84:  470. 
Owens,  9  Kan.  App.  595;  291. 
Page,  60  Kan.  664:  10. 
Page,  20  Mont.  238:  228,  847. 
Parker,  91  N.  C.  650:  932. 
Parker,  26  Vt.  362:  145,  166. 
Parker,    12  Wash.  6S5:  789. 
Park  hurst,  9    N.  J.  L.  427: 

576. 
Parks,  165  Mo.  496:  1184 
Partlow,  91  N.  C.  550:  800. 
Partridge,  29  Neb.   158:  436. 
Patterson,  2  Ired.  L.  346:611, 

617. 
Pearcy,  44  Mo.  159:  533. 
Peelle,  121  Ind.  495:  5,  7. 
Pennoyer,  65  N.  H.  113:  427. 
People,  47  N.  Y.  330:  459. 
People's  Slaughter    House, 

etc.  Co.,  46  La.  Ann.  1031: 

301. 
Perkins,  139  Mo.   106:  1300. 
Perry,  120  N.  C.  580:  992. 
Persinger,   7G  Mo.  346:  582. 
Peterson,  142  Mo.  526:  646, 

964,  987. 
Petit  74  Minn.  376:  419. 
Phillips,  73  Minn.  77:  302. 
Phoenix  Ins.   Co.,   92  Tenn. 

420:  703,  731. 
Pierce,  14  Ind.  302:  481,  484. 
Pierce,  51  Kan.  241:  223,234, 

571. 
Pierson,  44  Ark.  265:  860. 
Pierson,  41  La.  Ann.  90:  201. 
Pilgrim,   17  Mont.  311:  689, 

690. 


v. 

V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 


State  v.  Pinckney,  22  S.  C.  484:  1288. 
v.  Piper,  17  Neb.  614:  343. 
v.  Pitts,  58  Mo.  556:  1121. 
v.  Plainfield,  54  N.  J.  L.  529 

390. 
v.  Plainfield  W.  S.  Co.,  67  N.  J 

L  357:  685,  1064. 
v.  Piatt,  2  S.  C.  150:  68,  78,  8* 

94,  607. 
v.  Piazza,    66    Miss.    426:    921, 

1110. 
v.  Police  Jury,  45  La.  Ann.  249: 


Pollard,  6  R.  I.  290:  523. 
Pond,  93  Mo.  606:  171,  360, 

423. 
Pool,  74  N.  C.  402:  757,  797. 
Porter,  53  Minn.  279:  233, 243. 
Post,  55  N.  J.  L.  264:  397. 
Potwitt,  17  Mont.  41:  569. 
Powder  Mfg.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L. 

75:  432. 
Power,  63  Neb.  496:  230. 
Powers,   36    Conn.   77:    960, 

1075,  1086. 
Powers,  38  Ohio  St.  54:  339, 

354,  410. 
Poydras,  9  La.  Ann.  165:  729. 
Preston,  34  Wis.  675:  777. 
Price,  12  G.  &  J.  260:  878. 
Price,  8  Ohio  C.  C.  25:  72, 100. 
Prouty,  115  Iowa,  657:  524. 
Pugh,  43  Ohio  St.  98:  601. 
Purdy,  14  Wash.  343:  530. 
Rackley,  2  Blackf.  249:  513. 
Randolph,  23  Ore.  74:  427. 
Ranscher,  1  Lea,  96:  357. 
Ranson,  73  Mo.  78:  185,  190. 
Ray,  153  Ind.  334:  578. 
Ray,  97  N.  C.  510:  872. 
Ray,  109  N.  C.  736:  973. 
Read,  49  La.  Ann.  1535:  239, 

431.. 
Reader,  60  Iowa,  527:  867. 


CCX.W  I 


I  Ai'.i  l     OF    0A81  S    01  i  ED. 


ire  to  the  pages:  Vol.  1,  pp,  l  608;  VoL  11.  n>.  808  1815. 


rfl   Minn.   89:  448, 

v.  Ree  i   i  ll.  &  M.-ll.  10   I 
v.  Reid,  185  Ma  B:  965,  97ft 
v.  l:    •.-,  i;j  [nd.  159:  357,868. 
v.  Richards,  76  Wis.  854:  170. 
v.  Richmond,  eta  R.  R,  I 

L19& 
v.  Rid  eway,55  N.J.  L,  10:379. 

v.  Rieger,  59  Minn.  151:  169. 
v.  Ringa  42  Mo.  App.  115:  1117, 

11-20. 
v.  Riordan,24Wi&  184:889,841, 

428. 
v.  Robert  P.  Lewis  Co.,  72  Minn. 

87:  76ft 
v.  Robertson,  41  Kan.  200:  925. 
v.  Robinson.  1  Kan.  17:  927. 
v.  Robinson,  42 Minn.  107:  1010. 
v.  Robinson,  35  Neb.  401:  429. 
v.  Robinson,   32  Ore.   43:    235, 

452,  651,  795. 
v.  Roby,  142  Ind.  168:  133,  706, 

885. 
v.  Rodecker,  145  Mo.  450:  909. 
v.  Rogers,  107  Ala.  444:  133,190, 

203,  299,  416,  450,  765. 
v.  Rogers,  10  Nov.  250:  120,  5ia 
v.  Rogers,  56  N.  J.  L.  480:  47. 
v.  Rogers,  22  Ore.  318:  72,  100, 

447,  510. 
v.  Rogers,  24  Wash.  417:  315. 
v.  Rollins,  80  Minn.  216: 741, 914 
\.  Rollins,  8  X.  II.  550:  29,  57a 
v.  Rorie.  23  Ark.  726:  969. 
v.  Rosenstock,  11  New  128:  582. 
v.  Ross,  49  Mo.  410:  558,  681. 
v.  Ross,20Nev,  01:001,:  . 

385. 
v.  Rotwitt,  17  Mont.  41:  514,847, 

931 
v.  Routh,  01  Minn.  205:  442. 
v.  Rube,  24  New  251;  802,  1302. 


State   v.  Rumberg,  86  Minn.  399: 

141.2  11. 
v.  Runnels,  92  'IV nn.  820:  434. 
v.  Rusk,  15  Wash.  408:  288,  164 
\.  Russell,  17  Mo.  App.  16:  880. 
v.  Russell,  34  Neb.    116:    1130, 

L290, 
v.  Russell,  20  Ohio  C.  C.  551: 

579. 
v.  Ryan,  13  Minn.  370:  1182. 
v.  St.     Joseph's     Convent     of 

Mercy,  116  Mo.  575:  1161. 
v.  St.  Louis,  174  Ma  125:  673, 

813. 
v.  St.    Louis    Sch.    Board,   131 

Ma  505:  527,529. 
v.  St.  Paul  Trust  Co.,  76  Minn. 

123:  70S  1117,1119. 
v.  Sanders,   42   Kan.    228:    191, 

229,249,339. 
v.  Sanford,  67  Conn.  286:  963, 

1187. 
v.  Santee,  111  Iowa,  1:  427,601. 
v.  Sawell,    107    Wis.    300:   456, 

562. 
v.  Schlenker,  112  Iowa,  642: 703, 

1064 
v.  Schlitz     Brewing    Co.,    104 

Tenn.715:  135,211,420,763, 

916. 
v.  Schnierle,  5  Rich.  L.  299:  328. 
v.  School  Board  Fund,  4  Kan. 

261:  316. 
v.  Schuchmann,   133   Mo.  Ill: 

815,  825. 
v.  Schultz  Co.,  83  Md.  58:  264 
v.  Schuman,  86  Ore.  16:  1297. 
v.  Scott,  98  Term.  254:  585. 
v.  Scott.  32  Wash.  279:  239. 
v.  Scott,  36   W.    Va.   704:    308, 

703,711,  775,1300. 
v.  Scudder,  32  N.  J.  L.  203:  642, 

643. 
v.  Seaborn,  4  Dev.  305:  518. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  Sears,  115  Iowa,  28:  730,  741, 

914. 
v.  Sears,  29  Ore.  580:  1190, 1210. 
v.  Secretary  of  State,  43   La, 

Ann.  590:  57,  79. 
v.  Seibert,  130  Mo.  202:  605. 
v.  Seiler,  106  Wis.  346:  769. 
v.  Severance,  49  Mo.  401:  893, 

894,  S95. 
v.  Severance,  55  Mo.  378:  527. 
v.  Shaffer,  21  Iowa,  486:  681. 
v.  Sharpless,  31  Wash.  191:  137, 

222, 426. 
v.  Shaw,  22  Ore.  287:  222,295. 
v.  Shearer,  46  Ohio  St.  275:  410. 
v.  Shedroi,  75  Vt.  277:  424. 
v.  Sheeves,  81  Iowa,  615:  1182. 
v.  Shepard,  64  Kan.  451:  301. 
v.  Sheriff,  48  Minn.  236: 428,  597. 
v.  Sherod,  80  Minn.  446:  429. 
v.  Sholl,  58  Kan.  507:  214,  252. 
v.  Showers,  34  Kan.  269:  919. 
v.  Sibley,  131  Mo.  519:  981,985. 
v.  Silver, 9 Nev.227: 186,205,252. 
v.  Simon,  53  N.  J.  L.  550:  389. 
v.  Simon,  20  Ore.  365:  694,  696, 

801, 1109. 
v.    Sinking    Fund     Com'rs,    1 

Tenn.    Cas.  490:   773,   863, 

944,  1028. 
v.  Sinks,  42  Ohio  St.  345:  595, 

601. 
v.  Sioux  City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  43 

Minn.  17:718. 
v.  Slaughter,  70  Mo.  484:  564, 
v.  Sloan,  66  Ark.  575:  223. 
v.  Slocum,38  Fla.  407:269. 
v.  Slover,  126  Mo.  652:  846,  854, 

912,  914. 
v.  Slover,  134  Mo.  10:  230,  280, 

466,  527,  540,  937. 
v.  Slover,  134  Mo.  607:  404,  406. 
v.  Small,  29  Minn.  216:  797,  981, 

985. 


State 
v 
v 


v.  Smalls,  11  S.  C.  262:68,82. 
,  Smiley,  65  Kan.  240:  426,  585. 
Smith,  38  Conn.  397:  642, 
1228. 
,  Smith,  5  Humph.  394:  748. 
.  Smith,  46  Iowa,  670:  756,  759. 
.  Smith,  67  Me.  328:  471,  637, 

1121. 
.  Smith,  35  Minn.  257:  232. 
.  Smith,  58  Minn.  35:414. 
.  Smith,  62  Minn.  540:  557. 
.  Smith,  35  Neb.    13:  10,  136, 

511. 
.  Smith,  48  Ohio  St.  211:  401. 
.  Smith,  44  Ohio  St.  348:  47, 

72,  78,  100. 
.  Smith,  52  Wis.  134:  777. 
.  Smith,  3  Tenn.  Cas.  493:  703. 
■.  Smith.  44  Tex.  443:  481,  484. 
.  Sneed,  121  N.  C.  614:  685. 
•.   Sneed,  25  Tex.  (Supp.)   66: 

1178. 
\  Snow,  81  Iowa,  642:  293. 
'.  Snow,  117  N.  C.  774:  497,  880. 
'.  Soloman,  33  Ind.  450:  835. 
'.  Solomons,  3  Hill  (S.  C.)  96: 

645,  1178,  1227. 
'.   Sopher,  25  Utah,  318:  134. 

419. 
'.  Sorrells,  15  Ark.  664:  927. 
\  South,  136  Mo.  673:  815,  825. 
r.  South  Carolina  Ry.  Co.,  28  S. 

C.  23:  1025. 
7.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  23  Ore. 

424:  1195. 
7.  Southern   Ry.  Co,  115  Ala. 

250:  237. 
t.  Spaude,  37  Minn.  322:  412. 
7.  Spellmire,  67   Ohio  St.    77: 

338,  354,  355,  358,  410. 
Squires,   26  Iowa,  340:  221, 

340,  401,  430,  1217,  1229. 
S.  S.  Orphan  Home,  37  Ohio 

St.  275:  6S7. 


v. 


V. 


.  V  1 1 1 


TAl'.l  i:    ('!  II  KI». 


Vol  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  005-1815. 


:  nt-.  M  X.  J.  L.  286:  390, 

\.  Staley,  SOhio  C.G602:  1158, 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  01  Neb.  28: 
134 

•■  Iowa.   815:  3G9, 
85. 
v.  stark.  18  Fla.  255:  593, 595. 
v.  Starr,  VII  R.  1.  269:   1298 
v.  State,  57  X.  J.   L.   34S:  585, 

v.  State  Auditor,  32  La.  Ann. 
89:  219. 

ite  Bank.  5  Itul.  350:  1133. 
v.  Stearns,   72  Minn.  200:  131, 

605.  1301. 
v.  Steele.  39  Ore.  419:  222,  224, 

.   Steelman,  60  N.  J.  L.  518: 
209. 
v.  Stephen^  140  Mo.   002:  592. 
-:e[ilienson.   2   Bailey.   334: 
649,  650,  696,  715. 
v.  Sterling,  20  Md.  502:  422. 
v.  Sterling,  8  Mo.  097:  1195. 
v.  Stevens,  69  Vt.  411:  750,  751, 

v.  Stevens,  112  Wis.  170:  135. 
v.  Stevenson,  18  Neb.  416:  177. 
v.  Stewart,  52  Neb.   243:  134, 

v.  Stiefel,  74  Md.  546:  707. 

v.  Stillman,  81   Wis.  124:  441, 

.  80& 
v.  Stinson,  17  Ma  154:  512. 
v.  Stirth,  11  Wash.  423:  143. 
v.  Stoffels,   89  Minn.    205:  42G. 
v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  425:  516,  529. 
v.  Stoller,  38  Iowa,  321:  823. 
v.  Stone,  24  Xev.  308:  305. 
v.   Stratton,  136  Mo.  423:  400, 

467,  499,  514. 
v.   Street,   117  Ala.    203:    190, 


State  v.  Stripling,  113  Ala.  120:  299. 
v.  Studt,  31  Kan.  245,  1  P.  635: 

517. 
v.  Stuht,  52  Neb.  209:  30?,  38G, 

586 
v.  Stumpf,  23Wia  630:  1143. 
v.  Stunkle,  41  Kan.  450:  230. 
v.  Sturgess,  10  Ore,  58:  528. 
v.  Styles,  121  Ala.  363:  468. 
v.  Sullivan,  62  Minn.  283:  392. 
v.  Sullivan.  67  Minn.  379:  173. 
v.  Sullivan,  72  Minn.  126:  370, 

404,  405,  406,  579,  G03. 
v.  Sullivan,  110  N.  C.  513:  1058 
v.  Sullivan.  14  Rich.  L.  281: 1181. 
v.  Summers,  1  12  Mo.  5S6:  469. 
v.  Superior  C't.,  21  Wash.  180: 

1224, 
v.  Superior  Ct.,  25  Wash.  271: 

135,  319. 
v.  Superior  Ct.,  28  Wash.  317: 

242. 
v.  Supervisors,  04  Miss.  305:  101. 
v.  Supervisors,  25  Wis.  339:  339, 

841,  428, 
v.  Supervisors,  02  Wis.  376:  598. 
v.  Swan,  7  Wyo.  166:  73,  78,  84, 

87,  92. 
v.  Swansonj  85  Minn.  112:  533. 
v.  Swift,  69  Inch  505:  607. 
v.  Swift,  10  Nev.  17G:  59,608. 
v.  Swisher,  17  Tex.  441:  145. 
\.  Swope,  7Ind.  91:  931. 
v.  Taylor,  134  Mo.  109:  1182. 
v.  Taylor,  35  N.  J.  L.  184:  997. 
v.  Taylor,  OS  N.  J.  L.  27G:  404. 
v.  Taylor,  7  S.  D.  533:  142. 
v.   Taylor,   21  Wash.   072:  278, 

v.  Thayer,  46  Neb.  137:  1198. 
v.  Thief  Riv.  Falls,  76  Minn.  15: 

394 
v.  Thomas,   30   La.    Ann.    003: 

552. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  R05-1315. 


State  v.  Thomas,  138  Mo.  95:   458, 

933,  935. 
v.  Thompson,  10  La.  Ann.  123: 

899. 
v.  Thompson,  141  Mo.  408:  1180, 

1181. 
v.  Thompson,  160  Mo.  333:  157. 

429. 
v.  Thrall,  59  Ohio  St.  368:  458. 
v.  Thurston,  92  Mo.  325:  433. 
v.  Tibbets,  52  Neb.  228:  134, 186, 

203,  222,  452. 
v.  Tieman,  32  Wash.  294:  296. 
v.  Tieman,  35  Wash.  294:  198. 
v.  Tim  me,  54  Wis.  318:  684. 
v.  Timothy,  147  Mo.  532:  739. 
v.  Tolly,  37  S.  C.  551:  488. 
v.  Tombeokbee  Bank,  2  Stew. 

30:  1193. 
v.  Tootle,  2  Harr.  541:  872. 
v.  Towle,  48  N.  H.  97:  1254. 
v.  Towner,  26  Mont.  339:  532. 
v.  Treasurer,   41   Mo.    16:    513, 

530. 
v.  Trenton,  38  N.  J.  L.  64:  622, 

679,  919. 
v.   Trenton,   53   N.  J.   L.   566: 

432. 
v.   Trenton,   54  N.   J.   L.   444: 

868,  397. 
v.  Trenton,  55  N.  J.  L.  72:  397. 
v.  Trenton,  56  N.  J.  L.  469:  368, 

897,  518,  1314. 
v.  Trenton,  57  N.  J.  L.  318:  61, 

128. 
v.  Trenton,   61    N.   J.   L.   484: 

391. 
v.   Trenton,   62   N.   J.    L.   795: 

379,  391. 
v.  Trolson,  21  Nev.  419:  447. 
v.  Troutman,  72  N.  C.  551:  506. 
v.  Tucker,  46  Ind.  355:  192,  199, 

222,  224,  339. 
v.  Tully,  20  Nev.  427:  176. 


State  v.  Turner,  26  Mont.  339:  850. 
v.  Turnpike  Co.,  16  Ohio  St.  308: 

723,  732,  744,  798,  813. 
v.  Tuttle,  53  Wis.  45:  577,  582. 
v.  Twitty,  2  Hawkes,  441:  620. 
v.  Tyrrell,  22  Nev.  421:  469. 
v.  Ueland,  30  Minn.  29:  7. 
v.  Union,  33  N.  J.  L.  350:  186, 
190.  201,  202,  204,  1230, 1232, 
1233. 
v.  Union,  62  N.  J.  L.  142:  135, 

775. 
v.   Union   Bank,  9  Yerg.  164: 

939. 
v.  Upchurch,  9  Ired.  454:  645. 
v.   Van  Stralen,  45  Wis.  437: 

446,  555. 
v.  Van  Vliet,  92  Iowa,  476:  467, 

771. 
v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  51 
Miss.  361:  702. 
Wabaunsee  Co.  Com'rs,   45 
Kan.  731:  275. 
Waddell,49  Minn.  500:  1028. 
Wagener,  69  Minn.  206:  427. 
Wagener,  77  Minn.  483:  429. 
Wahoo,  62  Neb.  40:  436. 
Walbridge,  119  Mo.  383:  527, 
537. 
v.  Walker,  105  La.  492:  209, 257, 

581,  602. 
v.  Walker,  83  Minn.  295:  408. 
v.  Walker,  123  Mo.  56:  694,  711, 

834. 
v.  Walker,  68   Mo.   App.   110: 

1801. 
v.  Wall,  153  Mo.  216:  813. 
v.   Wallis,   57    Ark.   64:    1158, 

1191. 
v.  Walsh,  43  Minn.  444:'-774, 815, 

829,  906,  971. 
v.  Walton,  69  Mo.  556:  373. 
v.  Wapello  Co.,  13  Iowa,  388: 
699. 


- 


TABLE    OF    0  L8ES    01  ill'. 


The  references  we  to  the  pages:  Vol  I.  pp.  1-003;  Vol.  II,  n>  l 


v.  War.  1, >11.  168  Mo.  819:  596. 
v  Wardens,  88  La  Aim.  720: 

v.  V.  .:!  »rd,  -I  Ala.  16:  486. 
v.  Warner,  66  Mo.  App.  1 19:  11 16 
v.  Warren,  28  Md  888:  54a 
7.  Washburn,  LG7  Ma  880:  C,  7, 

v.  Washington  Social  L.  Co.,  11 

Ohio,  96:   1037, 
v.  Washoe  Co.,  6  Nev.  104:  704 
v.  Washoe  Co.  Com'rs,  22  Nev 

■: 
v.  Washoe  Co.  Com'rs,  22  Nev. 

399:   191,  252. 
v.  Watson,  1 11  Mo.  338:  773. 
v.  Watson,  104  N.  C.  785:  112a 
v.  Wat  is. -J  3  Ark.  304:  462,  463, 

v.  Webb,  110  Ala.  211:  1287. 

v.  Webb's     Biv.    Imp.  Co.,   97 

Me.  559:  I 

v.  Weigel,  4b  Mo.  29:  660,  709, 

722. 

v.  Weir,  33  Iowa.  134:  145,  163. 

v.  Welbers,    11    S.    D.  86:   492, 

51a  5ia 

v.  Welch,  21  Minn.  22:  626. 
v.  Welch,  r,:,  Yt.  50:  1170.1181. 
v.  Wendler,  94  Wis.  309:  87,  90. 
v.  Wentler,  76  Wis.  89:  144. 
v.  Wescott,  55  N.  J.  L.  78:  302, 

379,  380,  :587,  390. 
v.  We-t  Duluth  L.  Co.,  75  Minn. 

456:  302,  534,  1117,  1119. 
v.  Westerfield,  23  Nev.  468:  576, 

602 
v.  Westerfield,  24  Nev.  29:  134 
v.  Westfall,  85  Minn.  437:   177, 

v.  W  St.  Ry.  Co.,  146 

Mo.  155:  111. 
v.  W   eeler,  25  Conn.  290:  577, 


State  v.  Wheeler,  64  Me.  589:  886 

\.  WJ lor,    28    Nov.    113:   646, 

862,  992. 
v.  Whetstone,  30  Ala.  591:  645. 
\.  Whetstone,  13  La.  Ann. 878: 

862 
v.  Whisner,  85  Kan.  271:  106. 
v.  W  hi  taker,  160  Mo.  59:    144, 

260,  414,  991. 
v.  White.  102  Mo.  533:  1302. 
v.  White,  96  Mo.  App.  34:  749, 

980. 
v.  Whitener,  93  N.  C.  590:  776. 
v.  Whitesides,  30  S.  C.  579:  574. 
v.  Whittlesey,   17    Wash.   447: 

205,  288. 
v.  Whitworth,  8  Lea,  594:  204, 

222  287. 
v.  Whitworth,  8  Port.  434:  481, 

482,  517. 
v.  Wilbor,  1  R.  L  199:  463. 
v.  Wilcox,  42   Conn.  364:    164, 

171. 
v.  Wilcox,  64  Kan.  7S9:  301. 
v.  Wilcox,  45  Mo.  458:  145,  345, 

356  "r>8,  412. 
v.  Wilcox,  3  Yerg.  278:  962. 
v.  Willard,  39  Mo.  App.  251:  528. 
v.  Williams,  8  Ind.  191:  670. 
v.  Williams,  35  Mo.  App.  541: 

711,  766. 
v.  Williams,  68  N.  H.  449:  707. 
v.  Williams,  13  S.  C.  508:  853. 
v.  Williams,  'J  Strob.  474:  835. 
v.  Williams,  5  Wis.  308:  871. 
v.  Willis,  66  Mo.  131:  1187. 
v.  Wilmington,  etc.  R.  R  Co., 

71  X.  C.  143:  642. 
v.  Wilson,  123  Ala.  239:  78,  80, 

81. 
v.  Wilson.  7  Ind.  516:  581. 
v.  Wilson,  19  Ky.  L.  R  126:  398, 

405,  406. 
v.  Wilson,  12  Lea,  246:  204,577. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXXX1 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


State  v.  Wilson,  43  N.  H.  419:  516. 
v.  Wilson,  48  N.  H.  398:  1182. 
v.  Wilson,  9  Wash.  218:  470. 
v.  Wiltz,  11  La.  Ano.  439:    531, 

699,  704,  911. 
v.  Wimpfheimer,  69  N.  H.  106: 

524. 
v.  Wingfield,  115  Mo.  428:  171, 

360,  423. 
v.  Winter,  118  Ala.  1:  204,  205, 

299. 
v.  Winter,  15  Wash.  407:  1237. 
v.  Wirt  Co.  Ct.,  37  W.  Va.  808: 

126,  261,  263. 
v.  Wise,  7  Ind.  645:  880. 
v.  Wise,  70  Minn.  99:  429. 
v.  Wish,  15  Neb.  448:  445,  459, 

462,  481,  561. 
v.  Withrow,  133  Mo.  500:  781, 

921. 
v.  Withrow,  154  Mo.  397:  176. 
v.  Witter,  107  N.  C.  792:  497. 
v.  Wofford,  116  Mo.  220:  1298. 
v.  Wofford,    121    Mo.    61:   374, 

606. 
v.  Wolfarth,  42  Conn.  155:  642. 
v.  Womble,  112  N.  C.  862:  413, 

569. 
v.  Wood,  155  Mo.  425:  694,  914. 
v.  Woodman,  26  Mont.  348:  429, 

834,  840. 
v.  Woodumnsee,   1   N.  D.  246: 

186,  191,  263. 
v.  Woodruff,  68  N.  J.  L.  89:  965. 
v.  Woodson,  41   Mo.   227:  1048. 
v.  Woodson,   128  Mo.  497:  518, 

846,  848,  851. 
v.  Woolard,  119  N.  C.  779:  434, 

649,  650,  796. 
v.  Workman,    35   W.   Va.   307: 

135. 
v.  Worth,  116  N.*C.  1007:  1011. 
v.  Wray,  109  Mo.  594:  57,  84,  99. 
v.  Wright,  159  Ind.  394:  135. 


State  v.  Wright,  54 N.  J.  L.  130:  381, 

393. 

v.  Wymen,  97  Iowa,  570:  1300. 

v.  Yancy,  123  Mo.  391:  354,  429. 

v.  Yardley,  95  Tenn.   546;  200, 

222,  247,  447,  491,  492,  566. 
v.  Yates,  66  Ohio  St.  546:  407. 
v.  Yewell,  63  Md.  120:  462. 
v.  Young,  47  Ind.  150:  199,  228. 

251. 
v.  Young,  3  Kan.  445:  948. 
v.  Young,  49  La.  Ann.  70:  483, 

484. 
v.  Young,  30  S.  C.  399:  574, 
v.  Ziegenhein,     144    Mo.    283: 
1159,  1163. 
State  Bank  v.  Cooper,  2  Yerg.  599: 
13,  343. 
v.  Knoop,    16  How.  369:  1192, 
1193,  1217. 
State  Bank  Receiver  v.  Plainfield 

Bank,  34  N.  J.  Eq.  450:  27. 
State  Board  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  48 
N.  J.  L.  146:  423. 
v.  Holliday,   150  Ind.  216:  889, 

891,  929. 
v.  Mobile  &  O.  R.  R.   Co.,  72 

Miss.  236:  694,727. 
v.  Ross.  191  111.  87:  517. 
v.  Ross,  91  111.  App.  281 :  517,  963. 
State  Lauds,  In  re,    IS  Colo.  359: 

133,  889. 
State  Line,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.'s  Appeal, 

77  Pa.  St.  429:  203,  232. 
State  Lottery   Co.  v.  Richoux,  23 

La.  Ann.  743:  53,  57. 
Staten   Island  Mid.    R.   R.    Co.   v. 
Hinchliffe,  170    N.  Y.  473:    707. 
State  Reporter's  Case,  150  Fa.  St. 

550:  509. 
State  Revenue  Agt.  v.  Hill,  70  Miss. 

106:  510,  518,  519,  551. 
State  Savings   Bank  v.  Matthews, 
123  Mich.  56:  1203. 


rcxxxn 


TAB]  E    OF   OASES    CITED. 


Tln<  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  i  608;  Vol.  li,  pp.  003-1315. 


State  Bavinj  a  fast  v.    Barret,  25 

nt  118:  1190. 
state  Treasurer's  Settlement,  In  re. 
51  Nek  116:  1046. 

Trust  e\>.  \.  Kansas City, eta 
R.  K.  Co.,  115  Fed.  867:  445,  1219, 
1357. 

•i    v.    Eatings,    7  Ind.     ill: 
1148. 
steamboat  Co.  v.  Collector,  18  Wall 
461. 
mboat  Fanner  v.  McCraw,  31 
Ala  659:  64:5. 
Steamboat    Northern    Indiana    v. 

Milliken.  7  Ohio  St.  383:  188. 
31       ii boat  Ohio  v.  Stunt,  10  Ohio 

Bb  582     1019. 
Steamer  Mary  Blane  v.  Beehler,  12 

829,  333. 
Steam    Navigation    Co.    v.    Dand- 
ridge,  8  Gill.  &  J.  818:  1033. 

mship  Co.   v.  Joliffe,  2  Wall. 
450:  445. 
Stebbins  v.  Anthony,  5  Colo.  348: 
327,  330.  334. 
v.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  32:  518, 

520. 
v.  Superior  Ct.  Judge,  108  Mich. 
G93:  1301. 
Steckert  v.  East  Saginaw,  22  Mich. 

103:  1140,  1155. 
Steedman  v.  Dobbins,  93  Tenn.  397: 
899,  900. 

e  v.  Midland  R  Co.,  L.  R  1 

Ch.  282:  881. 
v.  River  Forest,  1 10  111.  302:  700. 
v.    Steele,   04    Ala.    438:    1217, 

v.    Thompson,    42    Mich.    596: 
1270 
Steele  Co.  v.   Erskine,  98  Fed.  215: 

Steenken  v.  State,  88  Md.  703:  257, 


Steers  v.  Kinaey,  68  Ark.  860:  123ft 
1281,  1285,  12(>1. 

v.  Lash  ley.  (IT.  R.  01:  938. 
Steel  v.  Kurtz,  28  Ohio  St.  195:  770. 
Steffina   v.  Superior  Court  Judge, 

108  Mich.  633:  1030. 
Steger  v.  Arctic  Refrigerating  Co., 
89  Tenn  453:  1255,  1256. 
v.  Traveling  Mens'  B.  Ass'n,  208 
111.  236:  1230,  1234. 
Stegmaier  v.  Jones,  203  Pa.  St.  47: 

275. 
Stein  v.  Ashby,  30  Ala.  363:  908. 
v.  Leeper,  78  Ala,  517:  71,  78, 
87,  185,  201,  215. 
Steiner  v.  Coxe,  4  Pa.  St.  13:  893. 
Steinway,  Matter  of,  31  App.  Div. 

70:  573.  1052 
Stellwagen  v.  Probate  Judge,  130 

Mich.  166:  784. 
Stephen  v.  Metzger,  95  Mo.   App. 
609:  784. 
v.  State,  11  Ga.  225:  879. 
Stephens   v.   Ballou,  27  Kan.  594: 
458,  461,  466,  567. 
v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S. 
445:  720, 722, 797,  1223,  1304 
v.  Robinson,  2  Cromp.  &  J.  209: 

938. 
v.  Watson,  1  Salk.  45:  917. 
Stephens  Co.  v.  R.  R  Co.,  33  N.  J.  L, 

229:  633. 
Stephenson  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf.  508: 
551,  624,  1279. 
v.  Higginson,  3  H.  L.  Cas.  638: 

665,  754. 
v.  Osborne,  41  Miss.  119:  550. 
Steppacherv.  McClure,  75  Mo.  App. 

135:  847,  851. 
Stermer  v.  La  Plata  Co.,  5  Colo. 

App  379:  954. 
Sternberg  v.  State,  50  Neb.  127:  52 1. 
Sterner  v.  La  Plata  Co.,  5  Colo.  App. 
379:   1262. 


TABLE    OF   CASES    CITED. 


CCXXX111 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Sterrett  v.  Mc Adams,  09  Ky.  37: 

1130. 
Stetson  v.  Kempton,  13  Mass.  272: 

1033. 
Stetson-Post  Mill  Co.  v.  Brown,  21 

Wash.  619:  510. 
Stevens   v.    Andrews,  31   Mo.  205: 
1209. 
v.  Bomar,  9  Humph.  546:  868. 
v.  Brown,  20  W.  Va.  450:  25. 
v.    Cheney,   36  Hun,    1:    1264, 

1266. 
v.  Fassett,  27  Me.  266:  693. 
v.  Gourley,  7  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  99: 

1143. 
v.  Ross,  1  Cal.  94:  932. 
v.  State,  2  Ark.  291:  1019. 
v.  State,  89  Md.  669:  221,  295. 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  152 

Mo.  212:  703. 

v.  Truman,  127  Cal.  155:  9. 

Stevenson  v.  Colgan,  91  Cal.  649: 

130. 

v.  Moody,  2  Idaho,  260:  42. 

Steward  v.  Greaves,  10  M.  &  W. 

711:  490,  512,  637,  639. 
Stewart  v.  Atlanta  Beef  Co.,  93  Ga. 
12:  883. 
v.  Collier,  91  Ga.  117:  408. 
v.  Commonwealth,   10   Watts, 

307:  1014. 
v.  Davidson,  10  Sra.  &  M.  351: 

1220. 
v.  Griffith,  33  Mo.  13:  627. 
v.  Keemle,  4  S.  &  R.  72:  914. 
v.  State.  100  Ala.  1:  453. 
v.  State,  98  Ga.  202:  921. 
v.  Stringer,   41   Mo.    400:    862, 

1050. 
v.  Swanzy,  23  Miss.  502:  618. 
v.Thomas,   64  Kan.  511:    216, 

217. 
v.  Vandervort,  34  W.  Va.  524: 
1100,  1164. 


Sticknoth's  Estate,  7  Nev.  223:  550. 
Stief  v.  Hart,  1  N.  Y.  20:  942,  947. 
Stiefel  v.  Md.  Institute,  61  Md.  144: 

202,  582. 
Stiles  v.  Easley,  51  111.  275:  1016. 
v.  Guthrie,  3  Okl.  26:  689,  914 
v.  Lord,  2  Ariz.  154:  1294. 
v.  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.,  97    111. 
App.  157:  815. 
Stillman   v.  Isham,  11   Conn.  123: 

1102. 
Stilphen  v.  Stilphen,  65  N.  H.  126: 

1159. 
Stimpson   v.  Pond,  2  Curtis,  502: 

918. 
Stine  v.  Bennett,  13  Minn.  153:  313, 

314,  643,  950,  1287. 
Stingle  v.  Nevel,  9  Ore.  62:  443. 
Stinson  v.  Smith,  8  Minn.  366:  105, 

107. 
Stirman  v.  State,  21  Tex.  734:  518. 
Stockett  v.  Bird,  18  Md.  484:  515, 

531,  532,  660,  1102. 
Stocking   v.    Hunt,  3  Denio,    274: 

549:  1200. 
Stockle   v.  Silsbee,  41  Mich.  616: 

252. 
Stockman  v.  Brooks,  17  Colo.  248: 

300. 
Stockton  v.  Powell,  29  Fla.  1 :  127. 
Stoddard  v.   Sloan,  65  Iowa,  680: 

872. 
Stoever  v.  Immell,  1   Watts,  258: 

20,  551,  554. 
Stokes   v.   Macken,   62   Barb.  145: 
605,  610.  611,  612,  617. 
v.  People,  53  N.  Y.  164:  1182. 
Stokes  v.  Rodman,  5  R.  I.  405:  613. 
Stolz   v.  Thompson,  44  Minn.  271: 

301. 
Stone  v.  Bassett,  4  Minn.  298:  1210. 
v.  Charlestown,  114  Mass.  214: 

171. 
v.  Dickinson,  5  Allen,  59:  1272. 


.  ici\  i  Ai'.i.i-;    l  I-    OASl  8    01  I  BD. 

acee  we  to  \  oL  i.  pp.  I  808;  Vol.  n,  pp.  6 

59, 


v.  Doeter,  7  Ohio,  G  C.  B 
-17. 
v.  Lanuon, fl  Wis.  497:  987, 
v.  Mississippi,   191    U.   S.   814: 

1195. 
v.  Stone,  1  K.  I.  425 
v   Wilson,    19   Ky.   L   K.  126: 

v.  Wisoonsin,  94  U.  S.  181:  614. 
v.  ?eovil,  I.  i:.  l  G  P.  D.  691: 
.  91  l. 

rt,  115  Ga.  653: 1191. 

Kabel,  144  Ind.  501: 

57  !. 

Stopper!  v.  Niesle,  45 Nob.  105:802. 

Stori  >.  90  Tex.  283:  907. 

a  v.  Cotzhausen,  38  Wis.  139: 

rie  v.  Houston  City  St.  Ry.  Co., 
.  Tex.  129:  694.  713,  730,  1012. 
.    v.   DeArmond,    179  111.  510: 

855. 
v.  Furman,  25  X.  Y.  214:  1198, 
1200. 
Stotz  v.  Thompson,  44   Minn.  271: 

ighton  v.  Baker,  4  Mass.  522: 

irbridge  Canal  v.  Wheele}-,   2 
..  &  Ad  792:  1022,  1024 

ss,  2  Doug.  (Mich)  184: 
610 
v.  Stout,  58  N.J.  L.  598:  155. 
Stow  v.  Grand  Rapids,  79  Mich  595: 
-  141,  235. 
ell  v.  Zoucb,  1  Plow.  301:  G71, 

r  v.  Graham,  10  How.  82. 
lling  v.  Morgan,  1  Plowd.  200: 

v.  Crawford,  73Io%va,  G7G, 
35  N.  W.  920: 
v.   McKay,    15  Colo.  App.   60: 


Strasburger  \.  Dodge,  12  A.pp.  Caa 

il>.  G)87:  785. 
Sir.it ton   v.  Oregon   City,  35  Ore. 

409:  606 
Slr.it  ton  Claimants  v.  Morris  Claim- 
ants. 89  Tena  497:  18,  132,  187, 
428 
Straus  v.  Eagle  Ins.  Co.,  5  Obio  St. 

59:  1035. 
Strauss  v.  Heiss,  48  Md.  292:  821, 

471,  542,  548 
Street  v.  Common  wealth,  0  Watts 
&S.  209:460.  472. 
v.  Hooten,    131   Ala.   492:  231, 
2:;::,  432,  437,455. 
Streissgutb  v.  Reigelman,  75  Wis. 

212:  1049. 
Streubel  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.  R."   R. 

Co.,  12  Wis.  07:  5  L8. 
Strickland  v.  Geide,  31   Ore.  371: 

463,  518 
Stricklett  v.  State,  31  Neb.  074:  1 18, 

451. 
Striker  v.  Kelly,  2  Denio,  323:  99T, 
1047,  1140. 
v.  Kelly,  7   Hill,  9:    117,    1047, 
1130,1140. 
Strine  v.  Foltz,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  490: 

427. 
Strode  v.  Stafford  Justices,  1  Brock. 

162:  659,708,712. 
Strohm  v.  People,  100  111.  582:  757. 
v.  People,  60  111.  App.  128:  757. 
Strong  v.  Bircbard,  5  Conn.  357:  750. 
v.  Clem,  12  Ind.  639:  640. 
v.  Darling,  9  Obio,  201:  939. 
v.  Dennis,  13  Ind.  514:  640. 
v.  Dignam,  207  111.  385:  409. 
v.  state,  1  Blackf.  193:  1186. 
v.  Stebbins,  5  Cow.  210:  645. 
Strotlier  v.  Hutchinson,  4  Bing.  N. 

C.  83:  1083. 
Stuart  v.  Earl  of  Bute,  3  Ves.  212: 
723,  324, 


TADLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccxxxv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  603-1315. 


Stuart  v.  Kinsella.  14  Minn.  525:  205, 

251. 

v.  Kirley,  12  S.  D.  245:  306,  338, 

339. 

v.  Laird,  1  Cranch,  299: 888,  890, 

893. 

Studebaker  v.  Perry,  184  U.  S.  258: 

892. 

Studley  v.  Sturt,  2  Strange,  782:  337. 

Stump  v.  Napier,  2  Yerg.  35:  609. 

Sturgeon  v.  State,  1  Blackf.  39:  917. 

Sturgeon  Bay  Canal  Co.  v.  Leatham, 

164  111.  239:  757. 

v.  Leatham,  62  111.   App.  386: 

757. 

Sturges  v.  Crowinshield,  4  "Wheat. 

202:  699,  704,  912,  1190,  1200,  1210. 

Sturgis  v.  Hull,  48  Vt.  302:  642. 

Sturm  v.  Fleming,  31  W.  Va.  701: 

529. 
Sturtevant  v.  Commonwealth,  158 

Mass.  598:  1185. 

Stutsman  Co.  v.  Wallace,  142  U.  S. 

293:  614. 

Suburban    Rapid    Transit    Co.    v. 

New  York,  128  N.  Y.  510:  1195. 

Suche,  In  re,  1  Ch.  Div.  48:  641. 

Suckley  v.  Rotchford,  12  Gratt.  60: 

946. 

Sudbury  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  157 

Ind.  446:  326,  436. 

Suffolk  Bank  v.  Worcester  Bank,  5 

Pick.  106:  986. 

Sugar  Notch  Bor.,  In  re,  192  Pa.  St. 

349:  134, 186, 191, 194,  226,  411. 

Sugden  v.  Partridge,  174  N.  Y.  87: 

135. 

Sullivan  v.  Adams,  8  Gray,  476:  458. 

v.  Brewster,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  681: 

1200. 

v.  Heuse,  2  Colo.  424:  8C9. 

v.  La  Crosse,  etc.  P.  Co.,  10  Minn. 

386:  862. 

v.  Leadville,  11  Colo.  483:  1139. 

P 


Sullivan  v.  Mitcalf,  L.  R  5  C.  P.  D. 
445:  751. 
v.  Oneida,  61  111.  242:  1182. 
v.  People,  15  III.  233:  462. 
v.  People,  122  111.  385:  867. 
v.  State,  32  Tex.  Crim.  App.  50: 
471. 
Sullivan's  Appeal,  77  Pa.  St.  107: 

820. 
Summerland  v.  Bicknell,  111  Cal. 

567:  409. 
Sumner  v.   Miller,   64  N.    C.   688; 

1225. 
Sumter    Co.    v.    Gainesville   Nat. 

Bank,  62  Ala.  464:  592,  601. 
Sunbury,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper, 

33  Pa.  St.  278:  926. 
Sunderlin  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs,  119 

Mich.  535:  301. 
Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y. 

241:  186,  203,  204,  205,  287. 
Sunset  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.  v.  Medford, 

115  Fed.  202:  1031. 
Supervisors  v.  Auditor-General,  68 
Mich.  659:  252. 
v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  12  Minn. 

403:  502,  513. 
v.  Briggs,  3  Denio,  173:  550. 
v.  Heenan,  2  Minn.  330:  52,  87, 

188.  215,  224,  605. 
v.  Kaime,  39  Wis.  463:  1134. 
v.  Lackawanna  I.  &  C.  Co.,  93 

U.  S.  619:  463. 
v.  People,  25  111.  181:  84,  85, 202, 

1155. 
v.  Schenck,  5  Wall.  772:  1106. 
v.  Stanley,  105  U.  S.  304:  585. 
v.  United  States,  4  Wall.  446: 

1151. 
v.  United  States,  18  Wall.  71: 
614,  906, 
Supreme  Council  v.  Green,  71  Md. 

263:  23,  620. 
Surgett  v.   Lapice,  8  How.  48:  888. 


WV1 


TABLE    OF   CAS]  S   CI  i  1  D. 


rencee  tre  (•>  the  pages:  Vol  I.  pp.  i  808;  Vol  II.  pp.  603  1815. 


Surlatt  v.  Pratt,  3  A.  K.  Marsh,  174: 

.  Ellison,  0   B.  &  C,  750: 

:.it. 

i  Peerage  Case,  11  CI.  &  Fin. 
.   ..;,.  606,  699,  701,  748. 
Sutherland  v.  De  Loon,  1  Tex.  250: 

120,  1227. 
Sutterly  v.  Camden  Common  Pleas, 
41  X.  J.  L  495:  867. 

□  v.  Chenault  IS  Ga.  1:  1220. 
v.  Hay..  17  Ark.  462:  852. 
v.  People,  14.-)  111.  279:  673. 
v.  Phillips,   116   X.  C.  502:   134 
v.  State.  96Tenn.  696:  :170,  402, 

407. 
v.  Sutton,   87    Ky.    210:     1058, 

L059. 
v.  Sutton,  L.  R.  22  Ch.  Div.  511 : 
657,  691. 
Svennes  v.  West  Salem,   114  Wis. 

GJ0:  439,  441. 
Swamp  Land  District  v.  Glide,  112 

Cal.  85:  445,  1288. 
Swan  v.  Blair.  3  CI.  &  T.  032:  939. 
v.  Kemp,  97  M<1.  080:  524. 
v.  Mulhevin,    07    111.    App.    77: 
696,  700,  885. 
Swaney  v.  Gage  Co.,  04  Neb.  G27: 

Swann,  Ex  parte,   90   Mo.  44:  171, 

360,  423. 
Swann  v.  Buck,  40   Miss.   2GS:  58. 
115,  110,  120,  312,  813,  402, 
180,  518,  638,  659,  712. 
v.  Jenkins,  82  Ala.  478:    1020, 

in's  Case,  7  Co.  82:  878. 
rts   v.  Siegel,  117  Fed.  18:  702. 
Swartwont  v.  Railroad  Co.,  24  Mich 

I:  231,  417,  708,  712. 
Swartz,  In  re,  47  Kan.  157:  310. 
Bwayne    v.   Terrell,   20    Tex.    Civ. 
,81:  1169. 


Swayze  v,  Britton,    17   Kan.   625: 

298. 
Sweet  v.  Syracuse,  129  X.  Y.  31G: 

L84,  271. 
Swepston    v.  Barton,   39  Ark.  549: 

1120. 
Swett   v.  Sprague,  55  Me.  190:  331. 
Swickard   v.  Bailey,   3   Kan.    507: 

1211. 
Swift  v.  Applebone.  23  Mich.  252: 
040. 
v.  Lenzer,  20   Ohio  C.  C.  007: 

887. 
v.  Luce,  27  Me.  285:  G95,  1111, 

1112. 
v.  Newport.  7  Bush,  37:  2 12.  457. 
v.  Tyon,  10  Pet.  1:  730,  1106. 
Swift,  Courtney,  etc.  Co.  v.  Unite  1 

Stairs.  It  Ct.  CI.  481;  890. 
Swifts    Appeal,   111    Pa.   St.  510: 

914. 

Swigart    v.   People,    154    I1L   284: 

408. 

v.  People.  50  111.  App.  181:  468. 

Swigert,  Matter  of,  119  III.  83:  819. 

Swinburn  v.  Mills,  17  Wash.  011, 

304,  1190,  1202. 
Swinfin   v.   Lowry,   37  Minn.  345: 

1270. 
Switzer  v.   Territory,   5   Old.   297: 

126. 
Swofford  Bros.   Dry  Goods  Co.,  v. 

Mills,  SO  Fed.  556:  780. 
Swope   v.   Jordan,   107   Tenn.  106: 

1231,  1.236. 
Sydnor  v.  Gascoigne,  11  Tex.  455: 

899. 
Sykes  v.  People,  127  111.  117:  230. 
Syndicate  Imp.  Co.   v.   Bradley,  7 

Wyo.  228:  470. 
Syracuse  Bank  v.  Davis,   16  Barb. 

188:  550. 
Syracuse  Savings  Bank  v.  Seneca 
Falls,  86  N.  Y.  317:  443. 


TABLE    CY    CASES    CITED. 


CCXXXV11 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


T. 

Tabor  v.  Com.  Nat.   Bank,  52  Fed. 

383:  200,  262. 

v.  Cook,  15  Mich.  322:  922. 

v.  Lander,  94  Ky.  237:  497. 

v.  State,  34  Tex.  dim.  631:  240. 

Tackett  v.  Volger,  85  Mo.  480:  1052. 

Tacoma   v.   Krech,  15  Wash.  296: 

1G0.  340,  419. 
Tacoma  Gas  &  Elec.  Light  Co.  v. 

Tacoma,  14  Wash.  288:  1028. 
Tacoma    Land   Co.    v.   Young,    18 

Wash.  495:  304,  1198,1216. 
Tadiook  v.  Ecoles,  20  Tex.  782:  186, 

188. 
Tafoya  v.  Garcia,  1  N.  M.  486:  518. 
Taff  Vale  Ry.  Co.  v.  Davis  (1894),  1 

Q.  B.  43:  884. 
Taggart  v.   Herrick,  55  Hun,  569: 
1133. 
v.  McGinn,  14  Pa.  St.  155:  18. 
Taggert  v.  Clay  Pool,  145  Ind.  590: 

428. 
Talbot  v.  Seeman,  1  Cranch,  1:  619. 
v.  Silver  Bow  Co.,  139  U.    S. 

438:  713,  730,  735,  774. 
v.  Sioux  City  Nat.  Bank,   185 
U.  S.  172:  1197. 
Talbot t  v.  Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co., 

74  Md.  536:  169,  699,  749. 
Tallamon  v.  Cardenas,  14  La.  Ann. 

509:  562. 
Tallman  v.  Syracuse,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

4  Keyes,  128:.  1243. 
Talmadge  v.  Coal,  etc.  Co.,  3  Head, 

337:   1021. 
Tampa  v.  Solomonson,  35  Fla.  446: 

468. 
Tappan  v.  Campbell,  9  Yerg.  436: 

610. 
Tappen,  Matter  of,  36  How.  Pr.  390: 

201,  252. 
Tarkio  v.  Cook,  120  Mo.  1:  189. 


Tarlton  v.  Briscoe,  4  Bibb.  73:  612. 

v.  Peggs,  18  Ind.  24:  308. 
Tar  ver  v.  Commissioners'  Ct.,  17  Ala. 

527:   1149. 
Tate  v.  Stool tzfoos,  16  S.  &  R.  35: 

1229. 
Tayloe   v.   Thompson,  5   Pet.   358: 

907. 
Taylor,  In  re,  60  Kan.  87:  77,  86. 
Taylor,  Matter  of,  3  App.  Div.  244: 

528,  536. 
Taylor,  Matter  of,  80  Hun,  589: 1007. 
Taylor  v.  Badoux,   92  Tenn.   249: 
470. 
v.  Bank  of  Illinois,  7  T  B.  Mon. 

576:  620. 
v.  Boardman,  25  Vt.  581:  869. 
v.  Carroll,  145  Mass.  95:  1264. 
v.    Corbien,    8    How.    Pr.    385: 

336. 
v.  Crowland   Gas  Co.,   10  Ex. 

293:  938. 
v.     Deveaux,    100    Mich.    581: 

1224. 
v.   Goodwin,  L.  R  4  Q.  B.  D. 

228:  715,  956. 
v.   Graham,   18  La.   Ann.  656: 

872. 
v.  Hill,  115  Cal.  143:  937. 
v.  Keeler,  30  Conn.  324:  641. 
v.  Kir  by,  31  III.  App.  658:  284. 
v.  McGill,  6  Lea,  294:  663,  1077. 
v.  Mitchell,  57  Pa.  St.  209:  641. 
v.  Newman,  4  B.  &  S.  89:  649, 

976. 
v.  Oldham  Corp.,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

Div.  395:  532,  653,  661. 
v.  Palmer,  31  Cal.  244:  335,  659, 

709,  712,  732. 
v.  Penn.  Co.,  78  Ky.  348:  28. 
v.  Place,  4  R.  I.  324:  5,  13,  19. 
v.  Porter.  4  Hill,  140:  13. 
v.    Pullen,    152    Mo.   434:    507, 
1296. 


CCXXXV111 


i  Ai'.i.K    OF   OA81  9    CITED. 


The  i  ■■■  to  the  pages:  Vol  I.  pp.  i  008;  VoL  n,  pp.  005-1315. 


rtson,  10  Utah,  330: 

464. 
v.  Rountree,  L6  Lea,  725:  1160. 
v.  Rushing,  2  Stew.  (Ala.)  100: 

547. 
v.  State,  26  Ala.  283:  308. 
v.  State,  81  Ala.  ;;S3:  311. 
v.  State,  7  Blackf.  03:  5.15,  G78. 
v.  Stearns,  is  (iratt.  244:   12 10. 
\.  Stevenson,  'J  Idaho,  180:  42. 
v.  st.  Helens,  L.  R  6  Ch.  Div. 

264,  1020. 
v.   Taylor,   10  Minn.   107:    882, 

v.  United  States,  3  How.   197: 

959,  998,  994. 
v.   Williams,   78  Va.  422:   1052. 
v.  W.  U.  Tel.  Co.,  95  Iowa,  740: 
•J'-..  OSS. 
Taylor,  McBean  &  Co.  v.  Chandler, 

9  Heisk  849:  857. 
Telfer  v.  Northern  R  R.  Co.,  30  N. 

J.  L.  188:   1201.  1,292 
Tell  v.  Woo.lrutr.  45  Minn.  10:  1257. 

|  e  v.  State,  40  Ala.  35  I:  558 
Temple  v.  Hays,  Morris  (Iowa),  12: 

v.  State,  15  Tex.  A  pp.  304:  880. 
Templeton  v.    Home,   82  III  491: 
549,  042. 
v.  Morgan,    16    La,   Ann.    438: 

Tenement  House  Department  v. 
Moeschen,  89  A  pp.  Div.  526:  177. 

Tennant  v.  Brookover,  12  W.  Va. 
837:  1227. 

Tennant's  Case,  3  Neb.  409:  47. 

Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  TJ.  S.  251:  39. 
v.  Sneed,  96  U.  S.  69:  1190, 1200, 
1205. 

Tennessee  Cent  R  R.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 109Tenn.  055:  1237. 

Teralty  Land  &  Water  Co.  v.  Shaf- 
fer, 110  CaL  518:   1222. 


Terre  Haute,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  ("ex, 

102  Fed  825:  430. 
Terrel   v.   Wheeler,  123  N.  Y.  76: 

i2;;2,  i2;;7. 
Terrell  v.  State,  86  Tenn.  523:  518, 

510. 
Terrett   v.   Taylor,  9   Cranch,   43: 

1192. 
Terrill   v.   Jennings,  1   Met.   (Ky.) 

150:  1245. 
Territory   v.  Ashenfelter,  4  N.  M. 
93:  916,  055. 
v.  Blomberg,  2  Ariz.  204:  42. 
v.  Clark,   2   OkL   82:    707,  722, 

736,  797. 
v.  Connell,  2  Ariz.  339:  137. 
v.  Cutinola,  4  N.   M.  305:  4S7, 

499,  863. 
v.  Guyott,  9  Mont  46:  42. 
v.  Hopkins,   9    Okl.    133:    649, 

651. 
v.  Lee,  2  Mont.  124:  46. 
v.  McPherson,  6  Dak.  27:  527. 
v.  O'Connor,  5  Dak.  397:  42,  60. 

171,  025. 
v.  O'Connor,  41  N.  W.746:  925. 
v.  Pratt,  G  Dak.  483:  533. 
v.  Prince,  6N.  M.  635:  145. 
v.  School  District,  10  Okl.  556: 

358,  410. 
v.  Wingliuld,  2   Ariz.   305:  514. 
Territt  v.  Woodruff.  19  Vt.  182:  611. 
Terry  v.  Merchants'  &  P.  Bank,  60 

Ga,  177:  S65. 
Teter  v.  Clayton,  71  Ind.  237:  562. 
Tetrault  v.  Orange,  55  N.  J.  L.  99: 

395 
Tetzner  v.  Naughton,  12  111.  A  pp. 

148:  1265. 
Tewksbury  v.  Schulenberg,  41  Wis. 

584:  1068. 
Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  700:  37. 
Texas  Land  Co.  v.  Williams,  48  Tex. 
002:  946. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


CCXXX1X 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


Texas  Mexican  Ry.  Co.  v.  Jarvis,  80 

Tex.  456:  553. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate 

Cora.  Com.,  162  U.  S.  197:  606. 
Thames,  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hamilton, 

L.  R  12  App.  Cas.  484:  822. 
Tharp  v.  Fleming,  1  Houst.  580:  627. 
Thatcher  v.  Powell,  6  Wheat.  119: 

616,  1048. 
Thayer  v.  Dudley,  3  Mass.  296:  853, 
912. 
v.  Felt,  4  Pick.  354:  336. 
v.  Grand  Rapids,  82  Mich.  298: 

741. 
v.  Seavey,  11  Me.  284:  553. 
Thistle  v.  Frostburg  Coal  Co.,  10 

Md.  129:  1217. 
Thoeni  v.  Dubuque,  115  Iowa,  482: 

1286,  1287. 
Thomas,  Ex  parte,  113  Ala.  1:  446, 

462,  514,  668. 
Thomas,  In  re,  16  Colo.  441:  1312. 
Thomas    v.   Austin,   103  Ga.   701: 
397. 
v.  Beckman,  1  B  Mon.  29:  611. 
v.  Butler,  139  Ind.  245:  517. 
v.  Collins,  58  Mich.  64:  253,  541, 

543. 
v.  Dakin,  22  Wend.  9:  62. 
v.  Douglass,  2  John.  Cas.  226: 

330. 
v.  Huesman,  10  Ohio  St.  152: 

1056. 
v.  Lewis,  89  Va.  1:  730,  766. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  71: 

1034. 
v.  Richmond,  12  Wall.  349: 1033. 
v.  State,  124  Ala.  48:  227,  449. 
v.  Stephenson,  2  E.  &  B.  108: 

1113. 
v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. ,  40  Fed.  126: 
252. 
Thomas'  Election,  198  Pa.  St.  546: 
1100,  1229. 


Thomason,  Ex  parte,  16  Neb.  338: 

252,  581. 
Thomason  v.  Ash  worth,  73  Cal.  73: 
398,  412. 
v.  Dill,  34  Ala.  175:  908. 
Thompson  v.  Bassett,  5  Ind.  535: 
555. 
v.  Baxter,  92  Tenn.  305:  1257. 
v.  Board  of  Sup'rs,  111  Cal.  553: 

271. 
v.  Buckhannon,  2  J.  J.  Marsh. 

416:  1134. 
v.  Bulson,  78  111.  277:  659,  709. 
v.  Caldwell,  3  Litt.  136:  1211. 
v.  Clay,  60  Mich.  62:  644. 
v.  Cobb,  95  Tex.  140:  1190, 1208. 
v.  Commonwealth,  103  Ky.  685: 

340. 
v.  Cox,  8  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  311: 

1051. 
v.  Egbert,  17  N.  J.  L.  459: 1063. 
v.  Farrer,  9  Q.  B.  Div.  372:  722. 
v.  Floyd,  2  Jones  L.  313:  146,159. 
v.  Haskell,  21  III  215:  871. 
v.  Howe,  46  Barb.  287:  556,  942. 
v.  Independent  School  District, 

102  Iowa,  94:  325. 
v.  Luverne,  128  Ala.  567:  267. 
v.  Musser,  1  Dall.  402:  619. 
v.  Read,  61  Iowa,  48:  20. 
v.  Smith,  7  S.  &  R.  209:  1005. 
v.  State,  20  Ala.  54:  729. 
v.  State,  26  Ark.  323:  1127. 
v.  State,  60  Ark.  59:  530. 
v.  St.  Paul    City  Ry.   Co.,  45 

Minn.  13:  1256. 
v.  Strickland,  52  Miss.  574:  910. 
v.  Supervisors,  111  Cal.  553:  509. 
v.  Trader's  Ins.  Co.,  169  Mo.  12: 

953. 
v.  Ward,  LR.6C.P. 353:  1241. 
v.  Weller,    85    III.    197:    1059, 

1061,  1064. 
v.  West,  59  Neb.  677:  547,  1221. 


ivxl  TABLE   OF   0AS1  8   I  I  I  'ED, 

Ihe  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-808;  Vol  w,  pp.  m:>  1816. 


Thomson   %.    Baker,  90  Tex.   188: 
1198. 

v.  Harris,    88     Hun.     ITS:    1117. 

11.".::. 
v.  Lee  i ',>..  ::  Wall.  327:  1033, 

1888. 
v.  Ward,  1  X.  H.  9:  980. 
Thornburg  v.  Am.  straw-hoard  Co., 
141     liul.     113:     705,     1058, 
1060,  1001. 
v.  Thornburg,   18  W.  Va.  522: 
1828 
Thome  v.    Cramer,    15  Barb.    112: 
145,  601. 
v.  San  Francisco,  4  CaL  127: 641. 
Thornton  v.  Lane,  11  Ga.  459:  658. 
v.  McGrath,   1  Dur.  349:   L229, 
1231. 
Thorpe  v.  Adams,  LR6C.P,  125: 

v.  Corwin.  20  X.  J.  L.  311:  1282. 
v.  R  &  B.  R  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140: 

1011),  1191,  1262. 
v.  Schooling,    7   Xev.    15:    461, 
518. 
Tliorrington  v.  Smith,  S  Wall.  1:  38. 
Thousand    Island     Park    Ass'n    v. 

Tucker,  17:)  X.  Y.  203:  1024. 
Thouvenin   v.   Rodrigues,  24  Tex. 

i057. 
Thresher  v.  Atchison,  117  Cal.  73: 

1203. 
Thurber  v.  Royal  Ins.  Co.,  1  Marvel, 

(Del.;  251:  015.  988. 
Thurston  v.  Percival,  1  Pick.  415: 
611, 612,  i 
v.  Prentiss,   1    Mich.    193:   638, 
1141. 
Thurston  Co.  v.  Sifters  of  Charity, 

14  Wash.  234:  1004,  1007. 
Tic!.'  ..  Matter  of,  13  Mich 

41 
Tide  Water  Canal  Co.  v.  Archer,  9 
,  J.  179:  : 


Tidey  v.  Mollett,  16  C.  B.  (N.  B.)998: 

777. 
Tien. an   v.  Rinker,  102  U.  S.  123: 

;.: :. 

Tierney  v.  Dodge,  9  Minn.  166:  597. 
Tiger   v.   Morris,  C.   P.,  42  X.  J.  L. 

681:  868,  878 
Tilford  v.  Ramsey,  43  Mo.  410:  19, 

Til  ley  v.  Hudson  R.  R  R  Co.,  24 

N.  Y.  474:  1292,  1293. 
Tillman  v.  Cocke,  9  Baxt.  429:  577. 
Tillotson  v.  Saginaw,  94  Mich.  240: 

505. 
Tiiton   v.  Swift,  40  Iowa,  78:  642, 

1228. 
Timlow   v.  Railroad  Co.,  99  Pa.  St. 

:  627. 
Timm  v.  Harrison,  109  111.  593: 

446. 
Timrns  v.   Williams,  3  Q.    B.  413: 

1052. 
Tims  v.  State,  26  Ala.  165:  458. 
Tindal  v.  Drake,  60  Ala.  170:  027. 
Tingue  v.  Port  Chester,  101  N.  Y. 

:  227. 
Tinkel  v.  Griff  en,  26  Mont.  426:  528, 

536,  1302. 
Tinkham  v.  Tapscott,  17  N.  Y.  152: 

073. 
Tinsley  v.  State,  109  Ga.  822:  341. 
Tioga  R  R  Co.  v.  Blossburg,  etc.  R. 

R  Co.,  20  Wall.  137:  22  L.  E.l.  331, 

614. 
Tipton,  Ex  parte,  28  Tex.  Ct.  App. 

438:  lJi 
Tipton  v.  Carrigan,  10  111.  App.  318: 
681. 
v.  Davis,  5  Hayw.  278:  891. 
I      i   11  v.  Combs,  7  Ad.  &  E.  796: 

Tise  v.  Shaw,  68  Md.  1 :  446, 857, 858. 
ab  v.  Ins.  Co.,  8  Mass.  328: 

079. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccxli 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  L  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Titus   v.  Scantling,  4   Blackf.   89: 

610. 
Titusville's  Appeal,  108  Pa.  St.  600: 

986. 
Tivey   v.   People,  8  Mich.   128:  20, 

545, 1224 
Tobin  v.  Hartshorn,  69  Iowa,  648: 

55S. 
Todd  v.  Clapp,  118  Mass.  495:  635. 
v.  Dunlop,  99  Ky.  449:  1301. 
v.  Flournoy's  Heirs,  56  Ala.  99: 

627. 
v.  Landry,  5  Martin,  459:  551. 
v.  Rustad,  43  Minn.  500:  7. 
v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  278: 
965. 
Toedtemeir  v.    Clackamas  Co.,  34 

Ore.  66:  711.  803. 
Toledo,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dunlap,  47 
Mich.  456:  257. 
v.  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37:  1195. 
Tolford    v.  Church,  66  Mich.  431: 

223. 
Toll  v.  Jerome,  101  Mich.  468:  112, 
301. 
v.  Wright.  37  Mich.  93:  1016. 
Tolley  v.  Courter,  93  Mich.  469:  272, 

577,  581. 
Tolmie  v.  Dean,  1  Wash.  T.  47: 1149. 
Tolson  v.  Kaye,  3  Brod.  &  B.  222: 

1016. 
Tombaugh  v.  Grogg,  146  Ind.  99: 

1076,  1290. 
Tomkins  v.  Ashby,  6  B.  &  C.  541: 

998. 
Tomlin  v.  Hildreth,  65  N.  J.  L.  438: 

464. 
Tomlinson  v.  Bullock,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 
D.  230:  319. 
v.  Greenfield,  31  Ark.  557:  875. 
Tompkins  v.  Forrestal,  54  Minn.  119: 

1169,  1225. 
Tong  v.  Marvin,  15  Mich.  60:  507, 
940. 


Tonnele  v.  Hall,  4  N.  Y.  140:  711, 

884,  885. 

Toole  v.  State,  88  Ala.  158:  1139. 
Toomy  v.  Dunphy,  86  Cal.  639:  710, 

885,  1076. 

Topeka  v.  Gillett,  32  Kan.  431:  177, 
359,  363,  385,  386,  402,  606. 
v.  Raynor,  61  Kan:  10:  189. 
Torbett  v.  Goodwin,  62  Hun,  407: 

988. 
Torrance  v.  McDougald,  12  Ga.  526: 

660. 
Torrey  v.  Corliss,  33  Me.  333:  641. 
v.  Millbury,  21  Pick.  64:   1117, 
1137. 
Torreyson  v.  Board  of  Examiners, 

7  New  19:  651. 
Toutill  v.  Douglas,  33  L.  J.  Q.  B. 

66:  679. 
Touzalin  v.  Omaha,  25 Neb.  817:  252. 
Towell  v.  Holhveg,  81  Ind.  154:  331. 
Towle  v.  Larabee,  26  Me.  464:  938. 
v.  Marrett,  3  Greenlf.  22:  517. 
Towles,  Ex  parte,  48  Tex.  413:  592, 

593. 
Town  School  Dist.  v.  School  Dis- 
trict, 72  Vt.  451:  493,  514,  529,  847. 
Towns  v.  Mead,  16  C.  B.  123:   1278. 
Townsend  v.  Binner,  1  Tenn.  Cas. 
197:  1160. 
v.  Brown,  24  N.  J.   L.  80:  683. 

1022. 
v.  Chase,  1  Cow.  115:  645. 
v.  Deacon,  3  Ex.  706:  127S.  1280. 
v.  Jemison,  9  How.  407:  1211. 
v.   Little,   109   U.   S.    504:  532. 

681. 
v.  Read,  10   C.   B.   (N.  S.)  308: 

756. 
v.  State,  147  Ind.  624:  10,  132, 

578,  603. 
v.  Todd,  91  U.  S.  452:  614. 
v.  Townsend,  14  Am.  Dec.  722: 
1208. 


TAi'.i  1     OF    c  ^8ES    ci  Ml'. 


the  pages;  Vol  I.  pp,  i  808;  Vol.  n.  pp,  i 


l  v.  Townsend,    Peck,   1: 

Townseo  l'a  Case,  Plowd.  118 
Trace;  v.  People,  6  Cola  151:  1139. 
rraokmau  v.  People,  32  Cola  83: 

Tracy  v.  Elizabefchtown,  etc.  R.  R 
I  '.>..  -o  Ky.  839:  1011. 
v.  Tutl'ly,   131  U.   S.   20G:    466, 
516. 
Trade   Mark  Cases,   100  U.    S.    82: 

590. 
Tradesman  Pub.  Co.  v.  Car  Wheel 

Co.,  95  Ten  n.  634:  1059. 
Trading   Stamp    Co.    v.    Memphis, 

101  Tenn.  181:  12,  72,  91. 
Trainor  v.    Board  of  Auditors,  89 
Mich.  102:  1301. 

Kill,  Ex  parte,  6  Ark.  9:  699. 
Trasher  v.  Everhart,  3G.&L  234: 

617,  618. 
Trash;  v.  Green.  9  Mich.  366:  19. 
v.  Wannamaker,  21  D.  C.  Rep. 
119:  1158. 
Trausch  v.   Cook  Co.,  147  111.  534: 

400.  465,  467,  527. 
Trautman  v.  McLeod,  74  Minn.  110: 

537. 
Tiivelers'  Ins.    Co.    v.   Fricke,   94 
Wis.  258:  891. 
v.  Oswego,  59  Fed.  58:  200,  304, 
339,  340,  614. 
Trear-y's  Petition,  59  Barb.  525;  1 828. 
well   v.    Com'rs,   11  Ohio  St. 
1023. 
Treanor  v.  Eichhorn,  74  Hun,  58: 
108. 

irer  v.  Bank,  47  Ohio  St.  503: 
577,  570. 
v.  Hall,  01  N.  J.  L.  437:  306. 
v.  I.  ,  v.  130:  655. 

v.  WygalL  40  Tex.  447:   549. 
I  v.  Strickland,  23  Me,  234:  558 


Treat  v.  White,  l^l   l\  s.  264:  749. 
Trehy   v.    Marye,    100  Ya,  40:   184, 

200,  270.  529. 
Tremont    Baptist   Church,   Matter 

of,  86  Misc.  590:  1004. 
Trevor's  Case,  Cor.  Jac.  269:  1105. 
Tribune  Printing  &  B.  Co.  v. 
Barnes,  7  N.  D.  591:  137,  302,763. 
Trigally  v.  Mayor,  6  Cold.  382:  159. 
Trigg  v.  State,  49  Tex,  645:  778,  784. 
Trimble  v.  Commonwealth,  96  Va. 

818:  603. 
Trimmer  v.  Heagy,  16  Pa.  St.  484: 

1142. 
Triplett  v.  Graham,  58  Iowa,  135: 

1062,  1294 
Tripp  v.  Goff,  15  R.  L  299:  654. 

v.  Overocker,  7  Colo.  72:  577. 

Tristv.Cabenos,18Abb.Pr.l43:1227. 

Troup  v.  Morgan  Co.,  109  Ala.  162: 

1306. 

v.  Smith,  20  John.  33:  1282. 

Troy,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18 

Barb.  297:  1057. 
Truelsen   v.    Hugo,   87  Minn.   139: 

1130.  1290. 
Trueman  v.  Lambert,  4  M.  &  S.  238: 

655. 
Tramble  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  340: 
196,  234,  238,  244,  250, 285, 452, 581, 
602. 
Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  238:  343. 
v.  Boliler,  80  Ga.  159:  1005. 
v.   Flemingsburg,  97  Ky.  702: 

713. 
v.  Laird,  4  be.  G.  M.  &  G.732: 

460. 
v.  Osborne,  9  Ind.  458:  1010. 
v.  White,  48  Ohio  St.  577:  689. 
Trustees,  etc.  v.  McConnel,   12  111. 

1  W:  1038. 
Trustees  of  Common  School  Dist- 
rict v.  Flemingsburg,  97  Ky.  702: 
954, 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccxliii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  H,  pp.  605-1315. 


'Trustees  of  Union  College,  Matter 

of,  129  N.  Y.  308:  1233. 
Trustees  of  V.  University  v.  Indi- 
ana, 14  How.  268:  1193. 
Tsoi  Sim  v.  United  States,  116  Fed. 

920:  695,  743,  914,  929,  955. 
Tuckahoe  Co.   v.  T.  R.  R  Co.,   11 

Leigh,  42:  1023. 
Tufts  v.  Tufts,  8  Utah,  142:  1217. 
Tulare  v.  Herren,  126  Cal.  226:  415. 
Tulare  Co.   v.  May,  118  CaL   303: 

428. 
Tullis  v.  Lake  Erie  &  W.  R  R.  Co., 

175  U.  S.  348:  417,  588. 
Tuohy  v.  Chase,  30  Cal.  524: 1119. 
Turcottv.  R  R  Co.,  101  Tenn.  102: 

770. 

Turley  v.  Logan  Co.,  17  I1L  153:  92. 

v.  Thomas,  8  C.  &  R  103:  868. 

Turner  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  27  Kan. 

314:  577,  582,  631. 

v.  Cross,  83  Tex.  218:  749,  909. 

v.  Davenport,  61  N.  J.  Eq.  18: 

444. 
v.  Dickerman,  95  Mich.  1:  1138. 
v.  Fish,  28  Miss.  306:  869. 
v.  Fish,  19  Nev.  295:  598. 
v.  Patoon,  49  Ala.  406:  872. 
v.  Siskiyou  Co.,   109  Cal.  332: 

415. 
v.  State,   40  Ala.  21:  481,  485, 
597,  1186. 
'  Turney  v.  Wilton,  36  111.  3S5:  444, 

1048. 
'Turnipseed  v.  Jones,  101   Ala.  593: 

311,  312,  543,  545. 
Turnpike  Cases,  92  Tenn.  369:  791, 

1002, 1008. 
Turnpike  Co.   v.  Davidson   Co.,  3 
Tenn.  Ch.  396:  1193. 
v.  Montgomery  Co.,  100  Tenn. 

417:  1023,  1024. 
v.  State.  1  Sneed,  474:  748. 
v.  State,  3  Wall.  210:  1023. 


Turnquist    v.    Cass    Co.    Drainage 

Com'rs,  11  N.  D.  514:  177,  227. 
Turtle  v.  Hartwell,  6  T.  R  429:  644, 

1075,  1086,  1108. 
Tuskaloosa  Bridge  v.  Jemison,  33 

Ala.  476:  644,  1247. 
Tuskaloosa  Bridge  Co.  v.  Olmstead, 

41  Ala.  9:  431,432,  446. 
Tuten  v.  Gazan,  18  Fla.  751:  618. 
Tuttle  v.  Block,  104  Cal.  443:  1285. 
v.  Gates,  24  Me.  395:  336. 
v.  Griffin,  64  Iowa,  455:  900. 
v.  Nat.  Bank,  161  111.  497:  621. 
v.  Polk,  92  Iowa,  433:  385,  389. 
v.  State,  4  Conn.  68:  1014. 
v.  Strout,  7  Min-n.  465:  218. 
v.  Walton,  1  Ga.  51:  1059,  1063. 
Tutwiler  v.  Tuskaloosa  C.  I.  &  L. 
Co.,  89  Ala.  391:  1169,  1200,  1225. 
Tuxbury's  Appeal,  67  Me.  267:  929, 

930. 
Twenty-Eight  Cases,  In  re,  2  Ben. 

63:  993. 
Twenty-eighth  St.,  In  re,  102  Pa. 

St.  140:  1052. 
Two    Hundred    Chests    of  Tea,  9 

Wheat.  430:  754, 
Twycross  v.  Grant,  2  C.  P.  D.  530: 

644. 
Twyne's  Case,  3  Co.,  826:  1246. 
Tyfee  v.  Yates,  3  Barb.  222:  938. 
Tyler  v.  Court  of  Registration,  175 
Mass.  71:  10. 
v.  Mut.  Dist.  Messenger  Co.,  13 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  267:  644, 
1076,  1248. 
v.  People,  8  Mich.  320:  927. 
v.  Trabue,  8  B.  Mon.  303:  620. 
Tynan  v.  Walker,  35  Cal.  634:  699, 

1085,  1281. 
Tyng  v.   Commercial   Warehouse 

Co.,  58  N.  Y.  308:  1035. 
Tyrrell  v.  New  York,  159  N.  Y.  239: 
089,  691. 


I 


r.\r.i  1.   OF   I   LSI  8   el  i  i  ;>. 


r    to  thfi  i'i.  oe:  Vol  l.  pp.  i  80S;  Vol  n.  pp 


!•:  re,  l  :  Cola  188:  L80& 
Tyson  \.  State,  88  Md  587:   12& 
v.  Thomas,  MoCleL  &  Y.  119: 

401. 

u. 

:  v.  Citizens'  St  Ry.  Co.,  152 
Ind.  B07:  28L 
Ufferl  v.  Vogt,  65  X.  J.  L  877:  894 
v.  Vogt,  65  N.  J.  L  631:  394. 

Pa  st.  498:  170. 
x.  Moses.  10  Pa  Supr.  Ct  194: 

v.   Seraple,  80   N.   J.   Eq.  288: 
619. 

ink  v.  Kith.  23  Wis. 

:  I    .'  '■•   Co.  v.  Attor- 

jr-Greneral,  46  X.  J.  Eq.  270:  61. 

Underwood   v.  Irving.  3   Cow.  59: 

645. 

v.  McDuffee,  15  Mich.  361:  452, 

Union   v.   Rader,  39  N.  J.  L.  509: 

121. 

n  Bank  v.  Commissioners,  119 

X.  C.  214:  GO,  92. 
v.  Jacobs,  6  Humph.  515:  1037. 
v.  Laird,  2  Wheat.  390:  1143. 
Union  (  anal  Co.  v.  Young,  1  Whai  t, 

1102. 
Union  Cent.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cham- 
plin,  116  Fed.  858:  747. 
v.  Chowning,86  Tex.  654:   420. 
.   i  «  o.  v.    I  17   III.  204: 

.'.'orks  v.  Lewis, 
1  Abb.  (U.  8.   518:  014. 
Union  Ji  [oge, 21  How. 35: 

v.  Unite  I  States,  6  Wall.  759: 

757. 
a   [ron  I  '<>.   v.  Pierce,  4 


Union  Minos,  In  re,  89  W.    \'a.  179: 

7. 
Union   National    Bank    v.    Byram, 
131  111.  98:  778,  1201. 
v.  Scott,  58  App,  Div.  65:  1133. 
Union  Pac.  R.  R  Co.  v.  De  Bush.  12 
Colo.  894:  644,  1070. 
v.  Dunden,  87  Kan.  1:  1298. 
v.  Prootor,  12  Colo.  194:  555. 
v.  United  States,  10  Ct.  of  CI, 

5.">9:  634. 
v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  72: 
684. 
Union   Pass.  Ry.  Co.'s  Appeal,  81* 

Pa.  St.  91:  188,  208. 
Union   Savings   Bank  &  T.  Co.  v. 
Dottenheim,  107  Ga  606:  858,  370, 

Union  Sewer  Pipe  Co.  v.  Connolly. 

99  Fed.  354:  426,  577. 
Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Trumbull,  157 

111.  146: 
United  Hebrew  B.  Ass'n  v  Benshi- 
raol,  130  .Mass.  325:  448,  445,  561, 
1219. 
United  States  v.  Ala.  Great  South- 
ern Ry.  Co.,  112  U.  S.  615: 
890.  891. 
v.  Alger.  152  U.  S.  384:  891. 
v.  Am.   Bell  Tel.  Co.,  159  U.  S. 

5!s:    1053. 
v.  Arredondb,  6  Pet.  7:18:  1021. 
v.  Athens  Arm'ory,  2  Abb.  (U. 

S.)  129:  982. 
v.  Athens  Armory,  35  Ga.  344: 

963,  982. 
v.  Averill,  130  U.  S.  835:  855: 

1299. 
v.  Averill,  4  Utah,  116:  1299. 
v.  Babbit,  I  Black,  55:  073,  811, 

818,  933. 
v.  Ballin,   144  U.  S.   1:  79,  125, 

181. 
v.  Bank,  6  Pet.  29:  890. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccxlv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


United  States  v.  Barr,  4  Sawy.  254: 
516,  558. 
v.  Barrels     of     Highwines,    7 

Blatch.  459:  993. 
v.  Barrels  of  Spirits,  2  Abb.  (U. 

S.)  305:  993. 
v.  Bashaw,  50  Fed.  749:  777,891. 
v.  Bassett,   2   Story,   3S9:    659, 

713,  721,  959. 
v.  Beaty,  Hempst.  487:  974. 
v.  Bedgood,  49  Fed.  54:  628. 
v.  Blasingame,   116    Fed.    654: 

151. 
v.  Bliss,    12   App.  Cas.  (D.   C.) 

485:  889. 
v.  Bcisdore,  8  How.  113:  553. 
v.  Bon  ton,   21    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

14,534:  956. 
v.  Bowen,   100   U.  S.  508:  521, 

522,  543.  855. 
v.  Breed,  1  Suran.  159:  755,  958, 

993,  994. 
v.  Burchard,  125  U.  S.  176:  1243. 
v.  Burgdorf,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

506:  1255. 
v.  Burr,   159  U.  S.  78:  324,  736, 

795,  884. 
v.  Case  of  Pencils,  1  Paine,  406: 

481,  483. 
v.  Cases  of  Cloth,  Crabbe,  356: 

993. 
v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  118 

U.  S.  335:  585. 
v.  Chase,  135  U.  S.  255:  G94,  745, 

885,  1110. 
v.  Cheesemau,  3  Sawyer,  424: 

519. 
v.  Choctaw,   etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  3 

Okl.  404:  784. 
v.  Claflin,  97  U.  S.  546:  459,469, 

519,  520. 
v.  Cement,  Crabbe,  449:   755. 
v.  Colin,  2   Ind.  Ter.  474:  693, 
793. 


United  States  v.  Colegrove,  8  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)255:  899. 
v.  Denver  &  R.  G.  Ry.  Co.,  150 

U.  S.  1:  1026. 
v.  Denver  &  R.  G.  Ry.  Co.,  150 

U.  S.  16:  1027. 
v.   Dickey,  Morris  (Iowa),  412: 

918. 
v.  Dickson,  15  Pet.  141:  675. 
v.  Distilled  Spirits,  10  Blatchf. 

428:  994. 
v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  40:  20. 
v.  Fifty-six  Barrels  of  Whis- 
key, 1  Abb.  (U.S.)  93:  971. 
v.  Finlay,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.)  364:  554 
v.  Finnel,  185  U.  S.  236:  890. 
v.  Fisher,   2  Cranch,   3~;8:  631, 

649,  650,  701,  702. 
v.   Four  Thousand    Am.  Gold 

Coin.  1  Woolw.  217:  872. 
v.  Fox,  94  U  S.  315:  016.  617. 
v.  Freeman,  3   How.   5G5:  844, 

1083. 
v.  Garrebon,  42  Fed.  Rep.  22: 

971. 
v.  Gear,  3  How.  120:  456,  469. 
v.   Gil  more,   8  Wall.   330:    642, 

672,  634,  758,  890,  1065. 
v.  Goldenberg,  168  U.  S.  95:  094, 

701,  744. 
v.  Graham,  110  U.  S.  219:  891. 
v.   Greathouse,  166  U.  S.  601: 

467,  529. 
v.  Green.  4  Mason,  427:  931. 
v.  Hall,  2  Wash.  366:  1175. 
v.  Harris,  1  Sumner,  21:  844. 
v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629:  590. 
v.  Harris,  177  U.  S.  305:  972. 
v.   Hartwell,  6  Wall.  385:  695, 

701,  967,  1194. 
v.  Hawkins,  4  Mart.  (U.  S.)  317: 

659,  731. 
v.  Healey,160U.  S.  136:  891. 
v.  Helen,  6  Cranch,  203:  67^. 


TABLK    OF    OASES    01  111'. 


The  refarenoei  .ir.«  to  the  pages:  Vol  I,  pp.  1-608;  VoL  u,  pp,  0 


United  States  v,    Hewes,  Crabbe, 
r,98L 
v.  Hirsch,  100 U.  S.88:  589,855. 
v.  Boar,  2  Mason,  811:  031. 
v.  Ho  Iron,  10  Wall.  895: 
v.  Holrendorf,    80    App.    Caa 

i76:   1154 
v.  Huggett,   10  Fed.  Rep.  080: 

963. 
v.  Hunter.  Pet.  C.  C.  10:  911. 
v.  Isham,  17  WalL  496:  889. 
v.  Jarvia,  davies,  274:  663,  711. 
t.  Johns.  4  Dalk  412:  619. 
v.  Johnson,  2  Sawyer.  482:  872. 
v.  Jones,   3   Wash.   C.   C.   209: 

864 
v.  Kelly,  97  Fed.  460:  553. 
v.  Keokuk  &  H.  Bridge  Co.,  45 

Fed.  178:  557. 
v.  King,  7  How.  83.'5:  600. 
t.  Kirby,  7  WalL    182:  665,  929. 
v.  Klein.  13  Wall.  128:  19. 
v.  Kohnstarnm,  5  Blatch.   222: 

67a 

v.  Lacher,  134  U.  S.  624 :  521, 522. 
v.  Langston,  118  U.S.  389:  500. 
v.  Lytle,  5  McLean.  9:  890. 
v.  MacFarland,  18  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)  120:  517. 
v.  Magill,    1    Wash.  C.  C.  403: 

864 
v.  Mann,  1  Gall.  177:  20. 
v.  Martin,  94  U.  S.  400:  939. 
v.  Mayor,     2    Am.     La\7    Reg. 

(U.  S.)394:  1009. 
v.  McCrory,  119  Fed,  801:  649, 

650. 
v.  Moore,  95  U.  S.  760:  890. 
v.  Morrison.  4  Pet.  124:  615,  621. 
v.  '■!  ry,87:  1092,1299, 

v.  Moulton,  5  Mason,  537:  902. 
v.  New  Be  Iford  Bridge,  1  Wood 
&  M.  401:  647,  947. 


United   States  v.   Nichola  27  Fed. 

Caa  N<>.  15.880:  056, 
v.  Nix,  189  U.  S.  199:  529. 
v.  North    Am.    Com'l    Co.,    74 

Fed.  145:  855. 
v.  Northern  Securities  Co.,  120 

Fed.  721:  993. 
v.  Olney,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.)  275:  993. 
v.  O'Neal,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

205:  1222. 
v.  One  Hundred  and  Twelve 

Casks  of  Sugar,  8  Pet  277: 

754. 
v.  One  Hundred  and  Twenty- 
nine   Packages,  2  Am.  L. 

Reg.  (U.  S.)419:  993. 
v.    One    Hundred    Barrels    of 

Spirits.  2  Abb.  (U.  S.)  305: 

453,  971. 
v.  Oregon  &  Cal.  R.  R.  Co.,  57 

Fed.  426:  883. 
v.   Oregon  &  C.  R.  R,  Co.,  164 

U.  S.  526:  650. 
v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  610:   649, 

050,  869. 
v.  Pass  more,  4  Dall.  372:  20. 
v.  Patterson,  150  U.  S.  65:  1299. 
v.  Paul,  6  Pet.  141:  788,  966. 
v.  Pearce,  2  McLean,  14:  978. 
v.  Percheman,  7  Pet.  51:  34 
v.  Philadelphia,  11  How.  609: 

606. 
v.  Pine  River  L.  &  L  Co.,  89  Fed. 

907:  722,  738. 
v.   Powers,  1   Alaska,  180:  970. 
v.  Powers'  Heirs,  11  How.  577: 

34 
v.  Prospect  Hill  Cem.,  8  App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  32:  19. 
v.  Queen,  105  Fed.  269:  6,  9. 
v.  Ragsdale,  Hempst.  497:  645, 

698,  703,  704,  962. 
v.   Ramsay,  Hempst.  481:  645. 
v.  Ranlett,  172  U.  S.  133:  519. 


tadle  of  oases  cited. 


ccxlvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603:  Vol  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


United  States  v.  Rathbone,  2  Paine, 
578:  631. 
v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  214:  589. 
v.  Reisinger,  128  U.  S.  398:  557. 
v.  Rhodes,   1  Abb.  (U.  S.)  28: 

693. 
v.  Ross  valley,  3  Ben.  157:  798. 
v.  Sadie,  The,  41  Fed.  396:  909. 
v.  Samperyac,  1  Hempst.  118: 

18,  19. 
v.  Sampson,  19  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)419:  527. 
v.  Sanger,  144  U.  S.  310:   861, 

862. 
v.  Sapinkow,  90  Fed.  654:  444. 
v.  Sarchet,  Gilpin,  273:  754. 
v.  Saunders,  22  Wall.  492:  711. 
v.  Schooner  Peggy,  1  Cranch, 

103:  631. 
v.  Seymour,  10  App.  Cas,(D.C.) 

294:  133. 
v.  Sheldon,  2  Wheat.  119:  965, 

967. 
v.  Ship   Recorder,    1    Blatchf.  | 

218:  887,  895. 
v.  Six  Fermenting  Tubs,  1  Abb. 

(U.  S.)  268:  554. 
v.  Sixty-Seven     Packages,     17 
How.  85,  15  L.  Ed.  54:  46:3". 
v.  St.  Anthony  R.  R.  Co.,  192 

U.  S.  524:  1027. 
v.  Star,  Hempst,  469:  642,  645. 
v.  Stern,  5  Blatch.  512:798. 
v.  Sweeny,  157  U.S.  281:921. 
v.  Sweet,  189  U.  S.  471:  890. 
v.  Tanner,  147  U.  S.  661:  891. 
v.  Ten  Cases  of  Shawls,  2  Paine, 

162:757,967. 
v.  Ten     Thousand      Cigars,    1 

Wool w.  123:  479. 
v.  The  Peggy,  1  Cr.  103:  552. 
v.  Thoman,  155  U.  S.  353:  1133. 
v.  Three  R.  R  Co.*s,  1  Abb.  (U. 
S.)  190:  689. 


United    States  v.   Three  Tons  of 
Coal,  6  Biss.  379:  993. 
v.  Tingey,  5  Pet.  115:  1134. 
v.  Trans.  Mo.  Freight  Ass'n,  58 

Fed.  58:  757,  759. 
v.  Trans.  Mo.  Freight  Ass'n,  166 

U.  S.  290:  744,883. 
v.  Turner.  11  How.  663:  606, 618. 

865,  866, 868. 
v.  Twenty-five  Cases  of  Cloth, 

Crabbe,  356:  467. 
v.  Tynen,  11  Wall.  88:  481,  483, 

516,  520,  553. 
v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  91  U. 

S.  72:  882,  883. 
v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  148  U.  S. 

562:  890. 
v.  Walker,  23  How.  299:  16  L. 

Ed.  382:  463. 
v.    Warner,    4    McLean,    463: 

704. 
v.  Warwick,  51  Fed.  280:  519. 
v.  Watts,  1  Bond,  580:  999. 
v.  Webster,  Da  vies,  38:  654, 88L 
v.  Wiggles  worth,  2  Story,  369: 

994,  998, 999. 
v.  Wilder,  13  Wall.  254:  1017. 
v.  Willets,  5  Ben.  220:  993. 
v.  Wilson,  Baldw.  78:  758. 
v.  Wilson,  58  Fed.  768:  815,964. 
v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat.  76:  645, 

695,  963. 
v.  Winn,  3  Sumo.  209:  961,  965, 

984. 
v.  Wyngall,  5  Hill,  16:  636,  945. 
1058,  1140. 
United  States  Bank  v.  Longworth. 

1  McLean,  35:  18. 
United  States  Blowpipe  Co.  v.  Spen- 
cer, 40  W.  Va.  698:  765. 
United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Elly- 

son,  28  Iowa,  370:  412. 
United  States  M.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
19  Ohio  C.  C.  358:  407,  458. 


ccxlviii 


TABLE    OF    OA81  S    CI  fKD. 


'    ■  ■  •     i:  V..1.  i,  pp,  i  808;  Vol,  II.  i>|>  806  1815, 


Tr,  Co.  v.  Brady,  20 
84a 
Unity  v.  Burr&ge,  108  U.  s.  4 1; 

31,  624,626,  626,  68& 
University  of  North    Carolina  v. 

lay.  l  Murph.  58:  1102, 
University  of  Utah  v.  Riohards,  20 

Utah,  167:  168,  62a 
University   Regents  v.   Attorney- 
General,  109  Mich.  184:  527. 
Unwinv.  Sanson,  1>.  K.  (1891)  2 Q.B. 

115:  740,  751. 
Upshur  v.  Baltimore  City,  94  Md. 

748:  1116, 
Upson,  In  re,  89  N.  V.  67:  223. 

ir  \.  State.  8  Tex.   App   177: 
B5. 
Utica  Water- Works  Co.  v.  Utica, 

31  Hun,  426:  262 
Utley  v.  Cavender,  81  S.  C.  282:  240. 
v.  Hill.  155  Mo.  232:  749,  980. 
v  v.  limn.  80  s.  G  360:  122. 
Uwchlan  Tp  Road,  30  Pa.  St.  156: 
551,  613,  1169. 

V. 

Vail  v.  Dinning,  44  Mo.  210:   1054. 
v.  Easton,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  44  N. 

J.  L  237:  528. 
v.  McKernan,  21  Ind.  421:  946. 
v.  San  Diego  Co.,  126  Cal.  35: 
409. 
Vairin  v.  Edmonson,  5  Gilm.  270: 

334 
Vallance  v.  Falle,  L,  R.  13  Q.  B.  Div. 

109:  639. 
Valton  v.  National  Loan,  etc.  Co., 

19  How.  I'r.  515:  1018. 
Vanada  v.  Hopkins,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 

87ft 
Van  Antwerp,  In  re,  1  T.  &  C.  123: 

Van  Antwerp.  Matter  of,  56  N.  Y. 
261:  481,  1231. 


Vanattd  v.    Anderson,    8    Bin,   417: 

94ft 
Van  Brunt  v,  Cincinnati,  etc.  K.  R 
Co,  78  Mich.  580:  L292. 
v.  Flat  hush,  128  N.    Y.  50:  271. 
Van  Buren  v.  Wylio.  56  Mich.  501: 

964 
Vance  v.  Grainger,  Conf.  71:  1282. 
v.  Gray,  9  Mush.  656:  797. 
v.  Rankin,  191  III.  825:  552,605. 
v.  Vandercook  Co.,  170  U.  S. 
438:  57 1. 
Van    Clief    v.    Van    Vechten,    55 

Hun,  467:  436. 
Vandall  v.  South  T.  F.  Dock  Co.,  40 

Cal.  83:  1035. 
Van   Denburgh   v.   President,  etc. 

66  N.  Y.  l :  562. 
Vanderberg,  in  re,  28  Kan.  248:  91. 
Vanderbilt  v.  Adams,  7   Cow.  349: 

1195. 
Vanderburgh  v.  Van  Rensselaer,  6 

Paige,  1 17:  328,  331. 
Vander  Donckt  v.  Thelluson,  8  C. 

B.  812:  620. 
Vanderkar  v.  Railroad  Co.,  13  Barb. 

390:  20. 
Vanderstolph  v.  Boylan,  50  Mich. 

330:  941. 
Vander  worker  v.  People,  j5  Wend. 

530:  872. 
Van  Deusen  v.  Hay  ward,  17  Wend. 

67:  1134 
Van    Deventer     v.      Long     Island 

City,  139  N.  Y.  133:  1232. 
Vandike  v.  Rosskam,  67  Pa.  St.  330: 

1005. 
Van  Dusen  v.  Fridley,  6  Dak.  322: 

1302. 
Vane  v.  Vane,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  383: 1102. 
Van  Fleet  v.   Van  Fleet,  49  Mich. 

610:  641,  659,  914. 
Van  Giesen  v.  Bloom  field,  47  N.  J. 

L  442:  377. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccxlix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  605-1315. 


Van  Hagan.  Ex  parte,  25  Ohio  St. 

426:  466,  567. 
Van  Hook  v.  Whitlook,  2  Edw.  Ch. 

304:  942,  1239. 
Van  Horn  v.  State,  46  Neb.  62:  185, 

225,  448,  514,  668. 
Van  Home  v.  Petrie,  2  Caines,213: 

1306. 
Van  Home's  Lessee  v.  Dorrance,  2 

Dall.  304:  1001,  1046. 
Van   Hoven burgh's   Case,    4   Hill, 

541:  1306. 
Van  Husan  v.    Hearnes,   96  Mich. 

504:  301. 
Van  Inwagen  v.  Chicago,  61  111.  31: 

545. 
Van  Kleeck,  In  re,  121  N.  Y.  701 : 

1159,  1166. 
Van  Loon  v.  Engle,  171  Pa.  St.  157: 
384,  391. 
v.  Lyon,  4  Daly,  149:  899,  902. 
Van  Matre  v.  Sankey,  148  111.  533: 

620. 
Van  Meter  v.  Spurrier,  94  Ky.  22: 

301. 
Vanneman   v.  Young,   52  N.  J.  L. 

403:   1140. 

Van  Ness  v.  Pacard,  2  Pet.  137:  G10. 

Van  Norman  v.    Jackson    Circuit 

Judge,  45  Mich.  204:  1049, 

1066. 

v.  Judge,  45  Mich.  204:  18.  19. 

Van  Pe'.t  v.  Gardner,  54  Neb.  701: 

566. 
Van  Rensselaer  v.  Ball,  19  N.  Y. 
100:  642. 
v.  Kearney,  11  How.  297:  616. 
v.  Livingston,   12  Wend.    490: 

641. 
v.  Sheriff,  1  Cow.  443:  645,  910, 

911. 
v.   Snyder,   9  Barb.    302:    466, 

1210. 
v.  Snvder,  13  N.  Y.  299:  642. 


Van  Riper  v.  Essex  P.  R.  B'd,  38  N. 
J.  L.  23:  S45,  854. 
v.  Parsons,  40  N.  J.  L.  123:  367. 
Van  Sicklen  v.  Burlington,  27  Vt. 

70:  949. 
Van   Slyke    v.    Trempealeau,   etc. 

Ins.  Co.,  39  Wis.  390:  1051. 
Van  Steen  v.  Beatrice,  36  Neb.  421: 

464. 
Van  Swarton  v.  Commonwealth,  24 

Pa.  St.  131:  624. 
Van  Tassell  v.   Derrensbacher,  56 

Hun,  477:  1311. 
Van  Valkenburgh  v.  Torrey,  7  Cow. 

252:  562,  564,  645,  1054. 
Van  Winkle  v.  Constantine,  10  N. 
Y.  422:  899,  1230,  1231. 
v.  Crabtree,  34  Ore.  462:  1290. 
Van  Wyck  v.  Hills,  4   Rob.    140: 

611. 
Vanzant  v.  Wadell,  2  Yerg.  260:  13, 

343,  357. 
Vardeman  v.  Lawson,  17  Tex.  10: 

610. 
Varnum,  In  re,  70  Vt.  147:  921. 
Vaughan  v.  Swayzie,  56  Miss.  704: 

1230,  1232. 
Vauxhall  Bridge  Co.  v.  Earl  Spen- 
cer, 2  Mad.  356:  628. 
Vavasour  v.  Ormrod,  6  B.  &  C.  430: 

671. 
Vawter  v.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  84  Mo.  679: 

28. 
Veats  v.  Dan  bury,  37  Conn.  412: 

551. 
Veazie  v.  China,  50  Me.  518:  1136. 
Veeder  v.  McKinley,   etc.   Co.,  61 

Neb.  892:  775. 
Vega  S.  S.  Co.   v.  Consolidated  El. 

Co.,  75  Minn.  308:  846. 
Velten   v.   Carmack,  23  Ore.  282: 

1294. 
Venour  v.  Sellon,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  Div. 

523:  691. 


ccl 


TABL1     01     I  AM  -    OITKD. 


•      i  are  to  the  pa  ea:  Vol  i.  pp.  I  008;  Voh  u,  pp.  605-1816. 


Ventress  v.  Smith,  10  Pet  181:  949. 
Ver  1  i ii  v.  St.  Louis,  131  Ma  26:  707. 
Co.,  116  Wis. 
191  (97. 

...  &  T.Co.  v.  Whithed,  9 
N.  D.  so:  416,  (177,  730.  si7.  B51. 
Vernon  Sohool  District  v.  Board  of 

Education,  125  Gal  598:  073. 
Vernon  Shell  Road  Co.  v.  Savan- 
nah, 95  Ga  & 
Vicar,  eta  Ex  parte,  88  L.  J.  Ch. 

701. 
Vioksburg  v.  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Ca,  72 

Vicksburg,  eta  Ry.  Co.  v.  Dennis 

110  U.  S.  665:  1004. 

v.  State,  62  Miss.  103:  999. 

ry  v.  Fitzpatriok,  8  Ind.  2S1: 

'.117. 

Vidal  v.  Glrard's  Heirs,  2  How.  127: 

29. 
Vielie  v.  Towers,  Colman  &  Caines, 

90: 
Viemeister  v.  White,  SS  App.  Div. 

44: 
Vietor  v.  Arthur,  104  U.  S.  498:521, 
548 
'a  Case,  31  Wall  648:  G44,  1080, 

Yim-enheller  v.Reagan, 69  Ark.  460: 

J  7  7. 
Vincennes  v.  Citizens'  Gas  Light 

Co.,  132  Ind.  114:  1024. 
Vincent,  Ex  parte,  26  Ala.  145:  748, 

Vincent  v.  Nantucket,  12  Cush.  103: 

Len  v.  Bowers.  55  Miss.  18:  708. 
Vining  v.  Bricker,  14  Ohio  St.  831: 

Vinsant  v.  Knox,  27  Ark.  266:  71,  85. 
Vinton  v.   Builders,  eta  Ass'n,  109 

Ind.  851:  71s 
Virden  v.  Allan,  107111.  505:258,306. 


Virginia  v.  Tennessee,  1 18  U.  S. 

808 
Virginia  C.  &  I.  Co.  v.  Keystone  C. 

&  1.  Co.,  101  Va.  723:  89ft 
Virginia  City,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Lyon 

Co.,  6  Nev.  68:  699. 
Virginia  Coupon  Cases,  114  U.  S. 

805:  590,  592. 
Virginia   Develop.   Co.   v.   Crozier 

Iron  Co.,  90  Va.  126:  426. 
Virginia  &  Tenn.  C.  &  L  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clelland, 98  Va.  424:  1261. 
Viterbo  v.  Friedlander,  120  U.  S, 

707:  709. 
Viti  v.  Dixon,  12  Mo.  477:  333. 
Vogel  v.  Pekoe,  157  111.  339:  419. 
Voight  v.  Gulf.  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  94  Tex. 
357:  508,  1288 
v.  Kersten,  164  111.  314:  1158. 
1191. 
Volans  v.  Owen,  74  N.  Y.  520:  1266» 

1267,  1270. 
Volmer  v.  State,  34  Ark.  487:  558. 
Von  Baumbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559: 

1199. 
Von  Campe  v.  Chicago,  140  111.  361: 

739,  71)7. 
Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall. 

535:  643,    1100,    1191,    1200,    1204, 

1200,  1210. 
Von  Phul'v.  Hammer,  29  Iowa,  222: 

429. 
Voorhees  v.  Bank  of  United  States, 
10  Pet.  449:  671. 
v.  Martin,  12  Barb.  508:  944. 
Vorons  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  102  Wis. 

70:  470. 

w. 

Wabash,  etc.  R  R  C.  v.  Beers,  2? 

Black,  448:  1192. 
Wadasz  v.  Arcade  Real  Est.  Co, 

206  Pa.  St.  539:  703. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


ccli 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Waite  v.  Santa  Cruz,  75  Fed.  9G7: 
386,  390. 
v.  Santa  Cruz,  89  Fed.  619:  386, 
390. 
Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  37  N.  H.  295: 
852,  853. 
v.  Smart,  8  Ark.  488:  1279. 
Wakeley  v.  Mohr,  15  Wis.  609:  582. 
Wakker,  In  re,  3  Barb.   162:  190, 

282. 
Wakker,  In  re,  1  Edm.  SeL  Cas.  575: 

633. 
Walcott  v.  Skauge,  6  N.  D.  382: 

466,  510. 
Waldby  v.  Callendar,  8  Mich.  430: 

1054. 
Wade  v.  Lewis  &  C.  Co.,  24  Mont. 
335:  689,  690. 
v.  St.  Mary's  School,  43  Md.  178, 
552,  553. 
Wagar  v.  Briscoe,  38  Mich.   587: 

1055,  1254. 
Waggaman  v.  District  of  Colum- 
bia, 16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  207:  965. 
Waggoner  v.  Flack,  188  U.  S.  595: 

1198,  1200, 1215. 
Wagner    v.    Milwaukee    Co.,    112 
Wis.  601:  302,404. 
v.  Stoll,    2    Rich.    (N.   S.)  539: 
511. 
Wagner  Free  Institute  v.  Philadel- 
phia, 132  Pa.  St.  612:  534. 
Wahl  v.  Nauvoo,  64  111.  App.  17: 

534, 
Waine wright,  In  re,  1  Phila.  258: 

663,  665,  724,  914. 
Wait  v.  Van  Allen,  22  N.  Y.  319: 

645. 
Walden  v.   Relyea,  89  App.   Div. 

241:  528. 
Waldo  v.  Bell,  13  La  Ann.  329:  636, 

899,  1057. 
Wales  v.  Belcher,  3  Pick.  508:  172, 
026,  1181. 

q 


Wales  v.  Muscatine,  4  Iowa,  302: 

1102. 
v.  Stetson,  2  Mass.  146: 910, 119a 
Walker,  In  re,  200  111.  566:  1003. 
Walker  v.  Board  of  Public  Works, 

16  Ohio,  540:  1019. 
v.  Boggess,41  W.  Va.588:  1160, 

1190,  1192. 
v.  Burt,  57  Ga.  20:  1049. 
v.  Caldwell,  4   La.   Ann.  297: 

185,  431,  432. 
v.  Chapman,  22  Ala.  116:  1117. 
v.  Chicago,  56 I1L  277: 1013,1054, 

1241,  1242. 
v.  Dailey,  101  111.  575:  981. 
v.  Ducros,  18  La.  Ann.  703:  946. 
v.  Forbes,  31  Ala.  9:  620,  621. 
v.  Griffith,  60  Ala,  361:  85,  86. 
v.  People,  202  III  34:  1163. 
v.  Sheftall,  73  Ga.  806:  1306. 
v.  State,  49  Ala.  329:  581. 
v.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  245:  443, 

445,  485. 
v.  Whitehead,  16  WalL  314: 643, 

1190,  1199,  1200. 
Wall,  Ex  parte,  48  Cal.  279: 145, 172, 

608. 
Wall  v.  Garrison,  11  Colo.  515:  435. 
v.  State,  23  Ind.  153:  457,481. 
v.  State,  18  Tex.  682:  555. 
Wallace  v.  Bradshaw,  53  N.  J.  L 

315:  562. 
v.  Bradshaw,  54  N.  J.  L.  175: 

562,  888,  893. 
v.  Burden,  .17  Tex.  467:  610. 
v.  Finch,  24  Mich.  255:  979. 
v.  Goodlett,  104  Tenn.  670:  577. 
v.  Holmes,  9  Blatchf.  65:  638. 
v.  Jameson,  179  Pa.  St.  98:  499. 
v.  San  Jose,  29  CaL  180:  1033. 
v.  Seales,  36  Miss.  53:  854. 
v.  Stevens,  74  Tex.  559:  923, 
v.  Taliaferro,  2  Call  (Va.),  389: 

758,  863,  1160. 


colii 


1A111.K    OF    CASKS    CHI  1>. 


T!r<  raferenoea  are  to  the  pages:  Vol  i,  pp.  '  W8i  V(>1-  ".  n>-  cos-isis. 


Waller  t.  Harris,  20  Wend.  668 

v.  Hughes,  2  Ari/,  114:  1002. 
Walling  v.  Dickertown,  04  N.  J.  L. 

Wallwyn  v.  Lee,  9  Ves.  86:  63ft 
Wally  v.  Kennedy,  0  Yerg.  554:  848. 

Wain  v.  Beverhy.  55  N.  J.  L.  oil: 

Walpolev.  Elliott,  18Ind.  258:  1232. 
Walraven  v.  Farmers'  &  M.  Nat. 

Bank,  90  Tex.  ;):;::  707. 
Walser  v.  Austin,  104  CaL  128:  409. 
v.  Jordan.    121   N.   C.   G83:  514, 

847. 
v.  Wear,  128  Mo.  652:  873. 
Walsh,  In  re.  87  Mich.  406:  1188. 
Walsh   v.    Association    of    Master 
riumb  rs.  97  Mo.  App.  280: 
1311. 
v.  Boyle,  30  Md.  202:  327,  330. 
v.  Commonwealth,   89   Pa.  St. 

419:  775. 
v.  Dart,  12  Wis.  635:  611. 
v.  Dousman.  28  Wis.  541:  341. 
v.  State,  142  Ind.  357:  444. 
v.  Trustees,  96  N.  Y.  427:  1036. 
Walsinghani's  Case,  2  Plow.  565: 

Walston  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B. 

Mon.  15:  642,  1182,  1226. 
Walter  v.  People,  32  N.  Y.  147: 1182. 
Walters  v.  Richardson,  93  Ky.  374: 

130,  220. 
Walton,  Ex  parte,  L.R,  17  Ch.  Div. 

710:    704,  713,  721,  724,  729,   913, 

Walton  v.  Dickerson,  4  Rich.  L.  508: 
121ft 

v.  Fudge,  63  Ma  App.  52:  769, 

1161,  1191. 
v.  State,  62  Ala.  197:  861,  963, 

v.  Walton,  96  Tenn.  25:  1154. 


Walwin  v.  Smith.  1  Salk.  177:  970. 
Wandsworth  Board  v.  United  Tel. 

Co.,  L.  R.  13  Q.  B.  D.  904:  1045. 
Wanet  v.  Corbet,  13  Ga.  441:  887. 
Wannamaker  v.  Poorbaugh,  91  111. 

App.  560:  620. 
Wanstead  Board  v.  Hill,  13  C.  B. 

N.  S.)  17'.):  824. 
Waples  v.  Dubuque,  116  Iowa.  167: 

1287. 
Warburton  v.  Loveland,  2  Dow.  & 
CI.  489:  699. 
v.    Loveland,    1     Hudson      & 
Brooke.  648:  793,  794. 
Ward  v.  Board  of  Equalization,  135 
Mo.  309:  302. 
v.  Boyd   Paving  &  C.  Co.,  79 

Fed.  390:  360. 
v.  Flood,  48  Cal.  36:  342. 
v.  Hartford,  12  Conn.  404:  1102. 
v.  Henry,  19  Wis.  76:  880. 
v.  Thompson,    48     Iowa,    588: 

1273. 
v.  Walters,  63  Wis.  44:  335. 
Warder  v.  Arell,  2  Wash.  (Va.)  282: 

1160. 
Wardle  v.  Townsend,  75  Mich.  385: 

2G2. 
Ward's  Will,  In  re,  70  Wis.  251: 

1297. 
Ware  v.  Easton,  46  Minn.  180:  1060. 
v.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212:  643. 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  Co.,  47  Ala.  667: 
446. 
Warehouse  Co.  v.  Lewis,  56  Ala. 

514:  724 
Warfield,  In  re,  22  Cal.  51:  899. 
Warfield  v.   Fox,   53   Pa.  St.  382: 
1015,  1282. 
v.  Ravasies,  38  Ala.  518:  1062, 
1294. 
Warfield's  Will,  82  Cal.  71:  893. 
Warford  v.  Sullivan,  147  Ind.  14: 
517. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


ccliii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Waring  v.  Jackson,  1  Pet.  570:  G16. 
Warne  v.   Beresford,  2  M.  &  W. 
848:  551. 
v.  Varley,  6  T.  R  443:  963. 
Warner  v.   Barber    Asphalt  Pav. 
Co.,  115  Mo.  572:  1032: 
v.  Beers,  23  Wend.  125:  62. 
v.  Commonwealth,    1    Pa.    St. 

154:  645. 
v.  Commonwealth,  2  Va.  Cas. 

95:  618. 
v.  Fowler,  8  Md.  25:  862,  1061. 
v.  Gunnison,  2  Colo.  App.  430: 
1076. 
Warnick   v.    Grosholz,   3    Grant's 

Cas.  234:  622. 

Warren  v.  Commonwealth,  37  Pa. 

St.  45:  1182. 

v.  Crosby,  24  Ore.  558:  431,  447. 

v.  Englehart,  13  Neb.  283:  1291. 

v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  149  111.  9: 

21. 
v.  Jones,  9  S.  C.  288:  1219. 
v.  Lusk,  16  Mo.  102:  611. 
v.  Mayor,  2  Gray,  84:  594,  601. 
v.  Shuman,  5  Tex.  441:  661. 
v.  Windle,  3  East.  205:  563,  564 
Warren  Co.  v.  Booth,  81  Miss.  267: 
757. 
v.  Nail,  78  Miss.  726:  140,  144, 
1027. 
Warren  R.  R  Co.  v.  Belvidere,  35 

N.  J.  L.  584:  459. 
Warrensburg  v.  McHugh,  122  Mo. 

649:  171. 
Warrick  v.  Rounds,  17  Neb.   411: 

12G7. 
Warrington  v.  Furbor,  8  East.  242: 

646,  998. 
Wash  v.  Boyle,  30  Md.  262:  331. 
Washburn  M.  O.  Asylum  v.  State, 

73  Minn.  343:  1003,  1004. 
Washer  v.   Elliott,   L.   R  1   C.  P. 
Div.  174:  814. 


Washington  v.  Page,  4  Cal.  388: 18S. 
v.  Washington,    69    Ala.   281: 
1230,  1231. 
Washington  Elec.  Vehicle  Trans. 
Co.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  19 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  462:  815,  826. 
Washington  &  G.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Har- 
mon, 147  U.  S.  571:  783. 
Washington  Heights  v.  Moffatt,  57 

111.  App.  269:  517,  519. 
Washington  &  Idaho  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Cceur  d'Alene  Ry.  &  Nav.  Co., 
160  U.  S.  77:  912. 
Washington  St.  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  Mat- 
ter of,  115  N.  Y.  442:  462,  887. 
Wassell  v.  Armstrong,  35  Ark.  247: 
677. 
v.   Tunnah,   25  Ark.  101:  662, 
710,  913. 
Waterbury  v.  Piatt,  75  Conn.  387: 

1041, 1042. 
Water  Com'rs  v.  Brewster,  42  N.  J. 
L.  125:  695. 
v.  Dwight,  101  N.  Y.  9:  1237. 
Water  Com'rs  of  Amsterdam,  Mat- 
ter of,  96  N.  Y.  351:  1041,  1042. 
Waterford    v.    Hensley,    Mart.   & 

Yerg.  (Tenn.)  275:  797. 
Waterhouse  v.  Keen,  4  B.  &  C.  200: 

756. 
Waters  v.  Campbell,  4  Sawyer,  121 : 
813. 
v.  Dixie  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co., 
106  Ga.  592: 1219, 1257. 
Watertown  v.  Mayo,  109  Mass.  315: 

1019. 
Water vliet  T.   Co.   v.   McKean,   6 

Hill,  616:  796,959. 
Water  Works  Co.  v.  Burkhart,  41 

Ind.  364:  516. 
Wathen  v.  Beaumont,  11  East,  271: 

336. 
Wat  kins  v.  Eureka  Springs,  49  Ark. 
131:  455. 


TABLE   OF   OASES    01  I  ED. 


The  refetvneea  nro  to  tho  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-003;  Vol  II.  pp.  005-1315. 


a  %.  GH  an,   66   Kan.  417: 

Hoi,  iaia 

v.  Griffith,  69  Ark,  844:  1012. 

v.  Bo  man,  L6  Pet  86:  6. 

v.  M  kjor, :..  i:.  10 G  P. 668:  876. 

v.  Wassell,    20    Ark.   410:    63$, 

roua  v.  Blair,  88  Iowa,  68:  939. 
Watson  v.  Blaylook,  2  Mills,  (S.  C.) 
851:  460 
v.  De   Witt   Co..  19  Tex.    Civ. 

App.  150:  1137. 
v.  Hoge.  7  Yerg.  344:  683,  693, 

695.  - 
v.  Kent,  78  Ala  602:  462. 
v.  Martin.  34  L.  J.  M.  C.  50:  968. 
v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88:  1174,  1229, 

1231. 
v.  Oates,  58  Ala.  647:  027. 
v.  State,  55  Ala  15S:  876. 
v.  Stone,  40  Ala  451:  37. 
v.  Tarpley,  IS  How.  517:  1106. 
Watts  v.    Sweeney,  127   Ind.  116: 
644,  1076,  1258. 
v.  Wilson,  93  Ky.  495:  498. 
Waugh   v.  Middleton,  8   Ex.  356: 
793,  797,  1160,  1225. 
v.Riley,  68  Ind.  482:  562. 
Waukegan  v.    Foote,  91  111.  App. 

588:  916. 
Wauschoff  v.  Masonic  Mut.  Bene- 
fit Society,  41  Mo.  App.  206: 1258. 
Waxahachie  v.  Brown,  67  Tex.  519: 

Wayman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat.  1: 

145.  146,  670,683. 
Wayne  Co.  Sup'rs  v.  Circuit  Judge, 

111  Mich.  3J:  469. 
Weakley  v.  Pearce,  5  Heisk.  401: 

562. 
Wear  Riv.  Com'rs  v.  Adamson,  L. 

R.  1Q.  B.  D.  549:  701. 
.therford    v.    Weatherford,    8 

Port.  171:  30a 


Weaver   v.  Davidson  Comity,    104 
Tena  315:  124,428,595,668, 

669. 

v.  Lapsley,  43  Ala.  224:  188. 

v.  MoElhenon,  13  Mo.  89:  879. 

v.  lVasIcy.  168  IU.  251:113a 

Webb,  In  re,  24  How.  Pa  247:  674. 

Webb  v.  Anspaoh,  3  Ouio  St.  522: 

105!i. 
v.  Baird,  6  Ind.  13:  1013. 
v.  Bird,  10  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  268: 808. 
v.   Bird.    13  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  841: 

808. 
v.  Butler  Co.  Com'rs,  52  Kan. 

375:  784 
v.  Fairmaner,  2  M.  &  W.  474: 

329. 
v.  Fairmaner,  3  M.  &  W.  473: 

327. 
v.  Jones,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  163:  1297. 
v.  Lewis,  45  Minn.  285:  1216. 
v.  Midway  Lumber  Co.,  68  Mo. 

App.  546:  473. 
v.  Mullins,  78  Ga.  Ill:  1059. 
Webber  v.   Chicago,  148   111.  313: 

815, 834,  841. 
v.  Howe,  33  Mich.  150:  550. 
v.  St.  Paul  City  Ry.  Co.,  97  Fed. 

140:  703. 
Weber  v.  Commonwealth,  24  Ky. 

L.R.  1726:301. 
v.  Weber,  47  Mich.  569:   1062, 

1294. 
Webster    v.    Auditor-General,  121 

Mich.  008:  1166,  1222. 
v.  Bowers,  104  Fed.  627:  1160, 

1192. 
v.  Cambridge  Female  Sem.,  78 

Md.  193: 1195. 
v.  Co.  Com'rs,  63  Me.  27:  559. 
v.  French,  12  111.  802:  330,  1142. 
v.  Hastings,  56  Neb.  669:  7:;. 
v.  Hastings,  59  Neb.  563:72,86, 

215. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cclv 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Webster  v.   Little  Rock,  44  Ark. 
536:  71,78. 
v.  Luther,  1G3  U.  S.  331 :  891, 

892. 
v.  Morris,  66  Wis.  366:  29,  609. 
v.  Rose,  6  Heisk.  93:  1209. 
Weckler  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  42  Md. 

581:  1035. 
Weed,  la  re,  26  Mont.  241:  757. 
Weed    v.   Lyon,  Walker,  Ch.   77: 
1141. 
v.  Tucker,  19  N.  Y.  422:  1244. 
Weeks  v.  Hull,  19  Conn.  376:  328. 
v.  Smith,  81  Me.  538:  60,  105. 
v.  Weeks,  5  Ired.  Eq.  Ill:  311. 
Weigel   v.  Hastings,  29  Neb.  379: 

270. 
Weil,  In  re,  83  N.  Y.  543:  1141. 
Weil  v.  State,  46  Ohio  St.  450:  230. 
Weill  v.  Kenfield,  54  Cal.  Ill:  60, 

78,  87,  752,  958. 
Weindel  v.  Weindel,  126  Mo.  640: 

751. 
Weinman  v.  Wilkinsburg,  etc.  Ry. 

Co.,  118  Pa.  St.  192:  403. 
Weir  v.  Cram,  37  Iowa,  649:  163. 
Weis  v.  Ashley,  59  Neb.  494:  88, 215, 

236. 
Weiser  v.   Welch,  112  Mich.  134: 

1263,  1264. 
Weister  v.  Hade,  52  Pa.  St  474: 

133,  714,  1095. 
Welborne  v.   State,   114  Ga,   793: 

300. 
Welch   v.   Battern,  47  Iowa,  147: 
316. 
v.  Hannibal,  etc  Ry.   Co.,  26 

Mo.  App.  358:  322. 
v.  Kline,  57  Pa  St.  428:  914. 
v.  Stowell,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  332: 

1019. 
v.  Sullivan,  8  Cal.  188:  902. 
v.  Wadsworth,  30   Conn.    149: 
555,  1198. 


Welker  v.  Potter,  18  Ohio  St.  85: 

368,  1141. 
Weller  v.  Membach,  114  N.  Y.  36: 
528. 
v.  Weyand,  2  Grant's  Cas.  103: 
1049. 
Wells,  Ex  parte,  21  Fla,  280:  580. 
Wells  v.  Bright,  4  Dev.  &  Batt.  L. 
173:  320,  608. 
v.  Burts,  86  Mo.  App.  264:  769. 
v.  Child,  12  Allen,  333:    1015, 

1282. 
v.  County  Com'rs,  79  Me.  522: 

1044. 
v.  Hyattsville,  77  Md.  125:  458. 
v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  110  Mo.  286: 

111,  112,  609. 
v.  Ragsdale,  102  Ga.  53:  1301. 
v.  Supervisors,   102  U.  S.  625: 
473. 
Wells  Co.  v.  McHenry,  7  N.  D.  246: 

524,  784,  1232. 
Wells,    Fargo   &    Co.    Express  v. 
Crawford  Co.,  63  Ark.  576:  135, 
928. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Oregon  R.  & 

N.  Co.,  15  Fed.  561:  1195. 
Welman,   Matter    of,  20   Vt.  653: 

319. 
Welsh  v.  Bramlett,98Cal.  219:  409. 
Welthey  v.  Kemper,  17  Mont,  491: 

646,  988. 
Welty  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.  Ry. 

Co.,  100  Wis.  128:  552. 
Wendel   v.   Durbin,   26    Wis.   390: 
1136. 
v.  State,  62  Wis.  300:  1037. 
Wenk  v.  New  York,  82  App.  Div. 

584:  291. 
Wentworth  v.  Racine  Co.,  99  Wis. 

26:  159. 
Werborn  v.  Austin,  77   Ala.   381: 

517. 
Werner,  In  re,  129  Cal.  567:  305. 


TABLE   OF   *  am  s   0]  rED. 


The  raterenOM  an  to  tho  i  .1.  <•>-:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-603;  Vol.  II,  pp.  005-1315. 


Wer:  iston,  -J  1  Kan.  147: 

v.  Etooheeter,  77  Hun.  B8:  758. 
t  v.  J    -     .  1  Blaokt  231:  834, 

685,  Coo1, 
v.  Cred iters,  1  La.   Ann.   3G5: 

80& 
v.  Downman,  L  R  14  Ch.  Div. 

Ill:  639. 
v.  Francis,  5  B.  &  Aid.  737:  777. 
v.    Pickesinier,    7    Ohio,    235: 

127ft 
v.  Sansom,  44  Ga,  295:  1206. 
v.  State.  70  Miss.  598:  964 
v.  West,  20  R.  LI:  336. 
West    Boston    Bridge    v.    County 

Com'rs,  10  Pick.  270:   1014. 
Westbrook  v.  Miller,  56  Mich.  148: 

v.  kosborough,  14Cal.  ISO:  1124. 

v.   Willey,  47  N.  Y.  457:    1142. 

West  Chester  Alley,  100  Pa.  St.  89: 

502. 
Westchester    Co.   v.    Dressner,    23 

App.  Div.  215:  554. 
West    Chicago    Park     Com'rs    v. 
Farber,  171  111.  14G:  298,  503, 
1031. 
v.  McMullen,  134  111.  170:   400. 
v.  Sweet.  107  111.  32G:  298. 
West  End,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Atlanta 

St  R  R.  Co.,  49  Ga.  151:  474 
Westerlield,  Ex  parte,  55  Cal.  550: 

401,  420. 
Western  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  464: 

751 
Western  Am.  Co.  v.  St.  Ann.  Co.,  22 

Wash.  158:  520. 
Western  &  A.  R  R  Co.  v.  Atlanta, 
113  Ga  537:  402,  527. 

lern  Granite  &  Marble  Co.  v. 
Knickerbocker,  103  CaL  111:  185. 
Western  Ranches  v.  Custer  Co.,  28 
Mont,  278:  191. 


Western  Union  R  R  v.  Fulton,  64 

111.  271:  642. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Cooledge, 
86  Ga  104:  305. 
v.  Lowery,  32  Neb.  732:  264 
v.  Lumpkin,   99   Ga.   647:    551, 

553. 
v.  State,  62  Tex.  030:  585,  601. 
v.  Taggart,  141  Ind.  281:  G3. 
Westervelt  v.  Baker,  50  Neb.  63: 
1294 
v.  Gregg,  12  N.  Y.  202:  1220. 
v.  People,  20  Wind.  41G:  1069. 
Westfield  Cem.  Ass'n  v.  Danielson, 

62  Conn.  319:  778,  780,  955. 
West  F.  R  R  Co.  v.  Johnson,   5 

How.  (Miss.)  273:  313. 
West  Ham  Overseers  v.  lies,  L  R 

8  App.  Cas.  380:  057. 
WTestheimer  v.  Goodkind,  24  Mont. 

90:  1058. 
Westinghausen  v.  People,  44  Mich. 

265:  1069. 
Weston  v.  Monroe,  84  Mich.  348: 
1139. 
v.  Supervisors,    44    Wis.    242: 
1002. 
West  Phila.  R  R  Co.  v.  Union  R 
R.  Co.,  9  Phila.  495:  201,  208,  256. 
West  Plains  Tp.  v.  Sage,  69  Fed. 

943:  192,  273. 
West  Point  W.  P.  &  L  L  Co.  v. 

State,  49  Neb.  223:  295. 
Westport  v.  Jackson,  69  Mo.  App. 
148:  514,  707. 
v.  McGee,  128  Mo.  152:  458,596. 
v.  Whiting,  62  Mo.  App.  617: 
1010,  1028. 
West  River  Bridge   Co.  v.  Dix,  6 
How.  528:  1023. 
v.  Dix,  1G  Vt.  44G:  1194 
Wetherbee   v.  Dunn,  32  Cal.  106: 
872. 
v.  Roots,  72  Miss.  355:  781. 


TABLE    OF   CASES   CITED. 


cclvii 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603; '.Vol.  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Wetniore  v.  State,  55  Ala.  19S:  891, 
893. 
v.  Tracy,  14  Wend.  250:  636. 
Wetumpka  v.  Winter,  29  Ala.  651: 

747. 
Wetzel  v.  Paducah,  117  Fed.  647: 

470. 
Wetzman  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  131 

Mo.  612:  260. 
Weyand  v.  Stover,  35  Kan.  545:  9% 

245. 
Wharton  v.  State,  5  Cold.  1:  555. 
Wheatley  v.   Lane,  1  Will.  Saund. 

216:  1080. 
Wheatou    v.    Peters,  8   Pet.    591: 

1142. 
Wheeler  v.   Chicago,  24  111.   105: 
1117. 
v.  Chubbuck,  16  111.  361:  312. 
v.  McCormick,  8  Blatchf.  267: 

663,  730,  1102,  1103. 
v.  Mills,  40  Barb.  644:  1141. 
v.  Philadelphia,  77  Pa.  St.  338: 
346,  377,  383,  626,  632,  633. 
v.  Roberts,  7  Cow.  536:  562. 
v.  Wheeler,  134  111.  522:  955. 
v.  Winn,  53  Pa.  St  122:  1252. 
Wheeling  &  Belmont  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  138  U.  S. 
287:  1215. 
Whidden  v.  Drake,  5N.H.  13: 1102. 
v.  Seelye,  40  Me.  247:  611,  612. 
Whipley  v.  Mills,  9  CaL  641:  1136. 
Whipple   v.   Judge,  26  Mich.  343: 
732,  845. 
v.  Williams,  4  How.  Pr.  28:  336. 
Whistler  v.  Foster,  14  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

248:  914. 
Whitborn  v.  Evans,   2  Fast,   135: 

323. 
Whitcomb  v.  Rood,  20  Vt.  52:  848, 
930. 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  153  Ind. 
513:  545,  859. 


White,  In  re,  33  Neb.  812:  231,  242, 

433. 
White  v.  Boody,  74  Hun,  39:  436. 
v.  Boot,  2  T.  R  274:  461. 
v.   Burgin,   113  Ala.  170:    297, 

463. 
v.  Chaffin,  32  Ark.  59:  1255. 
v.   Commonwealth,  20  Ky.  L. 

R  1942:  301. 
v.  Crutcher,  1  Bush,  472:329. 
v.  Eisman,  134  N.  Y.  101:  644, 

1241. 
v.   German  Ins.   Co.,  15  Neb. 

660:  331. 
v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646:  643,  1200. 
v.  Ha  worth,  21  Mo.   App.  439: 

327,  332. 
v.  Hinton,  3  Wyo.  753:  79,  114, 

327,  328. 
v.  Ivey,34Ga.  186:  823. 
v.   Johnson,   23  Miss.   68:   472, 

636,  844,  852. 
v.  Levy,  91  Ala.  175:  653. 
v.  Lincoln,  5  Neb.  505:  185. 
v.  Meadville,  177  Pa.  St.   643: 

503,  513. 
v.  Nashville,  etc.   R  R.  Co.,  7 

Heisk.  518:  463. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,   7  Heisk.   518: 

683. 
v.  Rio  Grande  Western  Ry.  Co, 

25  Utah,  346:739,797. 
v.  Simpson,  107  Ala.  386:  1261. 
v.  Steam  Tug,  6  Cal.  462:  991. 
v.  United  States,  191  U.  S.  545: 

649. 

v.  Wagar,  185  111.  195:  468,  829. 

v.  Wagar,  83  111.  App.  592:  468. 

v.  White,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  185:  6S0. 

White  Co.  v.  Key,  30  Ark.  603:  1241. 

Whited  v.  Lewis,  25  La.  Ann.  568: 

53,  57,  252,  581. 
Whitehead  v.  Commonwealth,  19 
Gratt.  640:  1138. 


I 


OF   I  OITI  l>. 


|     -.s:  Vol.  I.  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  11.  pp.  606-1815. 


Whitehea  Iv.  Wells,  29  Ark.  99:  808. 
White  Lake  Lumber  Co.  v.  Russell, 

Neb.  136:  1366. 
Whlteley  v.  ChappeU,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 

no. 
Whil  ssidesv.  Poole,9Rioh.  68:  B69. 
iter  Val.  Canal  Co.  v.  Yal- 
.  31  Bow:  ill:  L037. 
Whitford  v.  Panama  R  B.  Ca,  23 

N.  V.  165: 
Whiting  v.  Bit  Pleasant,  11  Iowa, 

804,  243. 
Whitloek  v.  Castro,  33  Tex.  108:  880. 
Whitman  v.  Ilapgood,  10  Mass.  437: 
641. 
v.  State,  B0  Md.  410:  292,  G07. 
Whitmire  v.  Muncy  Creek,  17  Pa, 

Bupr.  Ct  399:  707.  814. 
Whitney  v.  Brunette,  15  Wis.  61: 
1049.  1030. 
v.  Dey.  90  N.  C.  512:  1289. 
v.  Fox.  1GG  U.  S.  637:  785. 
v.  Gauche,  11  La.  Ann.  432:  874. 
v.  State,  33  Neb.  287:  487. 
v.  Thomas,  23  N.  Y.  281:  1141. 
v.  Wegler.  54  Minn.  235:   547, 

1218,  1288. 
v.  Whitney,   14  Mass.  88:  710, 
1351. 
Whitney's  Petition,  18  Phila.  670: 

1134. 
Whittaker  v.  Canal  Co.,  87  Pa  St. 

64:  1023. 
Wh  it  worth  v.  McKee,  32  Wash.  83: 

1317. 
Whyte  v.  Mayor,  etc.  2  Swan,  364: 

. 
Wick  v.  Ft.  Plain,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  27 

A  pp.  Div.  377:  493,  78& 
Wieman   v.   Anderson.  42  Pa.  St. 

811: 
Wiener  v.  Davis,  18  Pa.  St.  881 :  780, 

1019. 
Wiggin  v.  Peters,  1  Met.  127:  327. 


Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc. 

R.  R.  Co.,  B  Mo.  A  pp.  847:  868,879. 

Wight  v.  Warner,  1   Doug.  (Mich.) 

884:  933,  1048. 
Wightman  v.  Devere,  33  Wis.  570: 

1206. 
Wilbarger,  Ex  parte,  41  Tex.  Crim. 

Rep.  514:  137. 
Wilber  v.  Paine,  1  Ohio,  117:  644, 

1076,  1101. 
Wilbur  v.  Crane,  13  Pick.  284:  472, 
862. 
v.  Taunton,  123  Mass.  522:  757. 
Wilbur's  Estate,  14  Wash.  242:  514. 

847. 
Wilcox  v.  Baker,  72  App.  Div.  299: 
233 
v.  Hemming,  58  Wis  144:  583. 
v.  Hosmer,  83  Mich.  1:  1145. 
v.  Jackson,  109  111.  261:  880. 
v.  State,  3  Hei.sk.  110:  463. 
Wild  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  171 

Mass.  245:  1159,  1163. 
Wilder  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R,  R,  Co., 
70  Mich.  382:  420. 
v.  Lumpkin,  4  Ga.  208:  642. 
v.  Me.  Cent.  R.,  65  Me.  332:^643. 
v.  Railway  Co.,  70  Mich.  382: 
343. 
Wilderman  v.  Baltimore,  8  Md.  551 : 

548. 
Wilder's  Sons  Co.    v.   Walker,  98 

Ga.  508:  468. 
Wiles  v.  Peck,  26  N.  Y.  47:  940. 
Wiley  v.  Yale,  1  Met  553:  917. 
Wilford  v.  State,  43  Ark.  62:  1130. 
Wilkes  Co.  v.  Call,  123  N.  C.  308:  92, 

95. 
Wilkinson   v.   Adam,  1  Ves.  &  B. 
466:  939. 
v.  Colley,  5  Burr,  2698:  1249. 
v.  Ketler,  59  Ala.  300:  432,  517. 
v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  627:  626,  640, 
059,712,719,732. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cclxix 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  VoL  I,  pp.  1-603;  VoL  n,  pp.  605-1315. 


Willard  v.  Conduit,  10  Tex.  213:  622. 
v.  Fralick,  31  Mich.  431:  645, 

1049, 1050. 
v.  Newburyport,  12  Pick.  227: 

1033. 
v.  Sturm,  96  Iowa,  555:   1160, 
1191. 
Willcox  v.  Huggins,  Fitz.  172:  1278. 
v.  Huggins,    2    Strange,    907: 
1278. 
Willets  v.  Jeffries,  5  Kan.  470:  681, 

1170. 
Wm.   Deering  Co.  v.  Petersen,  75 

Minn.  118:  302. 
William  Gray,  The  Brig,  1  Paine, 

16:  978. 
Williams,  Ex  parte,' 87  Cal.  78:  428. 
Williams,  Ex  parte,  121  Cal.  328: 

453. 
Williams  v.  Beard,  1  Rich.  (N.  S.) 
309:  852. 
v.   Bidleman,  7  Nev.  68:   402. 
v.  Board  of  Revenue,  123  Ala. 

432:  300. 
v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  176:  37. 
v.  Burgess,  13  A.  &  E.  635:  327. 
v.  Cammack,  27  Miss.  209:  172. 
v.  Cheney,  3  Gray,  215:  938. 
v.  Commissioners,  35  Me.  345: 20. 
v.  Dickenson,  28  Fla.  90:  751. 
v.  Drewe,  Willes,  392:  956. 
v.  Eggleston,  170  U.  S.  304: 1194. 
v.  Ellis,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  175: 

714,  837. 
v.  Evans,  L.  R.  1  Ex.  Div.  277: 

794. 
v.  Golding,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  69:  824. 
v.  Hutchinson,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  62 

Kan.  412:  1219. 
v.  Johnson,  30  Md.  500:  642. 
v.  Keokuk,  44  Iowa,  88:  231. 
v.  Lear,  L.  R.  7  Q.  B.  285:  758. 
v,  McDonal,  3  Pin.  (Wis.)  331: 
666,  714,  722,  1100. 


Williams  v.  McLendon,  44  S.  C.  174: 

511,  847. 
v.  Middlesex,  4  Met.  76:   545, 

551. 
v.  Nail,  108  Ky.  21:  1195. 
v.  Nashville,  89  Tenn.  487:  114, 

136,  137. 
v.  Newton,  14  M.  &  W.  757:  892. 
v.  Paine,   169   U.    S.    55:    1076, 

1231. 
v.  People,  132  Ilk  574:  464. 
v.  People,  17  111.  A  pp.  274:  659. 
v.  People,  24  N.  Y.  405:  252,  345, 

422. 
v.  Peyton,  4  Wheat  77:  1046. 
v.  Potter,  2  Barb.  316:  466,  472. 
v.  Pritchard,  4  T.  R.  2:  530,  531, 

685. 
v.  Regina,  7  Q.  B.  250:  481. 
v.  Sangar,  10  East,  66:  998. 
v.  Smith,  4  H.  &  N.  559:  641, 

1227. 
v.  State,  6  Blackf.  36:  1000. 
v.  State,  67  Ga.  260:  869,  884. 
v.  State,  48  Ind.  306:  219. 
v.  State,  64  Ind.  553:  872. 
v.  State,  6  Lea,  549:  72,  78,  84. 
v.  Swansea  C.  Nav.  Co.,  L.  R  3 

Ex.  158:  471,  637. 
v.  Taylor,  83  Tex.  667:  67. 
v.  Tripp,  11  R  L  447:  1004. 
v.  Wade,  1  Met.  82:  612. 
v.  Weaver,  94  N.  C.  134:  1200. 
v.  Williams,  8  N.  Y.  541;  609. 
v.  WTilliams,  5  Ohio,  444:  1282. 
v.  Wingo,  177  U.  S.  601:  1215. 
Williamson  v.  Carieton,  51  Me.  449: 

177. 
v.  Farrow,  1  Bailey,  611:  329. 
v.  Field,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  533:  640. 
v.  Keokuk,   44  Iowa,  88:   243, 

252. 
v.  Ketter,  59  Ala.  30G:  436. 
v.  Lazarus,  66  Ark.  226:  1231. 


r.\i'.i  r   01    >  J.8E8   on  ED. 


tre  to  Um  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  C03;  Vol.  II,  pp.  606-181& 


Williamson  v.  New    Jersey,  130  U. 
a    89:  1009. 
ydam,  6  Wall.  723:  887, 
Williamsporl  v.  Commonwealth,  84 

Pa  St  187:  949, 
Williamstown    G.  T.  &    Dist.    v. 

Webb,  B9  Ky.  964;  1230. 

Win.  Wilson   A.    Son's  Silversmith 

»a  Estate,  L60  Pa.  St.  285:  469. 

Willing  v.  Bozman,  59  MdL  44:  533. 

Willingham  v.  Smith,  48  Ga.  580: 

674 
Willion  v.  Berkley,  1  Plowd.  236: 

931. 
Willis  v.  Eastern  Trust  &  B.  Co., 
169  U.  S.  295:  784 
v.  Hodson,  79  Md.  327:  1234. 
v.  Jelineok,  27  Minn.   18:  1219. 
v.  Long  Island   R   R.    Co.,   32 

B  rb  898:  1020. 
v.  Mabon,  4S   Minn.    140:    231, 

234,  834,  B41,  885. 
v.  Owen,  43  Tex.  48:  145,  904. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  32  Barb.  398: 

10  12,  1005. 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  01  Tex.  432:  28. 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  50  Minn. 

:  301. 
v.  State,  33  Tex.  Crim.  Rep.  168: 

707. 
v.  Thorp.  L.   R    10  Q.  B.  383: 

Willison    v.    Watkins,   3    Pet  43: 

1017. 
Willmarth  v.  Crawford,  10  Wend. 

342: 
Wills  v.  Anch,  8  La  Ann.  19:  1046. 
v.  Jones,  13  App   Caa  (D.  C.) 

482:  1294. 
v.  Russell,   100   U.  &  621:  759, 

Wilmerding,  In  re,  117  Cah  281: 

Wilson,  Ex  parte,  114  U.S.  429:  42. 


Wilson  v.  Arnold,  5  Mich.  98:  644, 

1049,  1064 
v.  Biscoe,  11  Ark.  44:  659,  709, 

789. 
v.  Booth,  57  Mich.  249:  1267. 
v.  Buckman,  18  Minn.  441:  643. 
V.  (arson,  12  Md.   54:  620,  022. 
v.  Cedarville,  109  I1L  App.  316: 

909. 
v.  Cock  rill,  8  Mo.  1:  869. 
v.  Downing,   4    Pa.   Supr.    Ct 

487:  303. 
v.  Duncan,  111  Ala.  659:  12a 
v.  Halifax,    L.   R.   3    Ex.   114: 

716,  804. 
v.  Herbert,  41  N.  J.  L.  454:  681. 
v.  Herinok,  64  Kan.  607:  191> 

205,  221,  291. 
v.  Hines,  99  Ky.  221:  66. 
v.  Knox  Co.,  132  Mo.  387:  527. 
v.  Knubley,   7   East,   128:  630, 

652,  748. 
v.  Lewis,  10  R.  L  285:  1102. 
v.  Massie,  70  Ark.  25:  517. 
v.  Nightingale,   8    Q.   B.  1034; 

6GG,  718. 
v.  Ohio,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  64  Ilk  542: 

1174,  1175. 
v.  Palmer,  75  N.  Y.  250:  1136. 
v.  Rastall,  4  T.  R.  757:  932. 
v.  Sanitary    District,    133    I1L 

443:  13,  132,  339,  921. 
v.  Shorick,  21  Iowa,  332:  63a 
v.  Simon,  91  Md.  1:  1257. 
v.  Smith,  5  Yerg.  379:  619,  86& 
v.  Spaulding,  19  Fed.  304:  650, 

651. 
v.   Standifer,   184    U.    a    399: 

1214. 
v.  State  Bank,  3  La  Ann.  196: 

1117. 
v.  Wall,  34  Ala.  288:  1217,  122a 
v.   Wentworth,  25  N.    II.    217: 

9G7. 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cclxi 


The  references  are  to  the  pages:  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-C03;  Vol.  IL  pp.  605-1315. 


Wilson  v.  West  Hartlepool  Co.,  2 
De  G.  J.  &  S.  475:  1101. 
v.  Wold,  21  Wash.  393:  1203. 
Wilson's  Assignee   v.  Wilson,  101 

Ky.  731 :  1259. 
Wilton  v.   Chambers,  7  Ad.  &  El. 

532:  887. 
Wimbish  v.  Tailbois,  1  Plowd.  38: 

1083. 
Winchester  v.  Cain,  1  Rob.   (La.) 

431:  1096. 
Winchester's  Case,  3  Rep.  4:  1094. 
Windham   v.    Chetwynd,    1    Burr. 

419:  887. 
Win  die  v.  Hughes,  40  Ore.  1:  560. 
Windom  Co.  Sav.  Bank  v.  Himes, 

55  Conn.  433:  468. 
Windsor  v.  China,  4  Greenlf.  298: 
328,  329. 
v.  Des  Moines,  110  Iowa,  175: 
656,  1230,  1237. 
Wing    v.    Benham,    76   Iowa,   17: 

1268. 
Winn  v.  Ficklen,  54  Ga.  529:  942. 
v.  Jones,  6  Leigh,  74:  521,  543. 
Winneconne   v.   Winneconne,    111 

Wia  13:  394,  1237. 
Winona  v.  Whipple,  24  Minn.  61: 

797. 
"Winona  etc.  Land  Co.  v.    Minne- 
sota, 159  U.  S.  526:  1004,  1006. 
Winona,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Barney, 
113  U.  S.  618:  1026. 
v.   Plain  view,   143  U.   S.   371: 
1213. 
Winooski  v.  Gokey,   49    Vt.    282: 

633. 
Winslow  v.  Kimball,  25  Me.  493: 
693,  1241,  1251. 
v.  Morton,  118  N.  C.  486:  465, 
467,  475,  847,  10ia 
Winston  v.  Stone,  102  Ky.  423:  399. 
Winter  v.    Dickerson,  42  Ala.  92: 
5G3. 


Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  190:  702, 
926,  927,  928. 
v.   Montgomery,  65  Ala.   403: 
926. 
Winterfield  v.  Stauss,  24  Wis.  394: 

756,  759. 

Winters  v.  Duluth,  82  Minn.   127: 

185,  191,  217,  274,  834,  841. 

v.  George,  21  Ore.  251:  466,  467, 

574. 

Wirt  v.  Supervisors,  90  Hun,  205: 

545,  557. 
Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  For- 
syth, 159  U.  S.  46:  694. 
v.  Taylor  Co.,  52  Wis.  37:  88L 
v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  190: 
891,  892,  1021. 
Wisconsin  Ind.  School  v.  Clark  Co., 

103  Wis.  651:  523,  769,  779,  880. 
Wisconsin  &  Mich.  Ry  Co.  v.  Pow- 
ers, 191  U.  S.  379:  1214. 
Wisconsin  Telephone  Co.    v.  Osh- 
kosh,  62  Wis.  32:  879,  1009,  1036. 
Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va.  269:  73,  78, 
82,  84,  87. 
v.  Morgan,  101  Tenn.  273:  741, 

914. 
v.  State,  34  Ga.  348:  1131. 
Wishmier  v.  State,  97  Ind.  160:  221, 

281. 
Wiskel  v.  Com'rs,  120  N.   C.  451: 

552. 
Wistar   v.  Foster,   46    Minn.  484: 

1224,  1231. 
Wiswall    v.    Hall,    3   Paige,    313: 

1026. 
Witherspoon  v.  Dunlap,  1  McCord, 

546:  942. 
Witkouski   v.  Witkouski,    16  La. 

Ann.  232:  562. 
Witter  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  113 

Iowa,  380:  950,  1029,  1237. 
Wohlscheid  v.  Bergrath,  46  Mich. 
46:  312. 


I 


TABLJ     01    OASES    OITED. 


aretot]  r6L  I,  l-OO-l;  Vol.  u,  pp.  005-1816 


Co.,  5  Wall 

v.    i  597:   644, 

v.  Wigton,  7  End.  44:  i 
Wolf  v.  Brown,  L4S  Ma  613:  1122. 
v.  Lowry,  10  La.  Ami.  27S 
v.  Taylor,  98  Ala.  254:  20& 

Wolfe,    Matter    of,   CO    Hun,  389: 

1159,  HOG. 
Wolfe  v.  Henderson,  OS   Ark.  304: 
548,  501. 
v.  MoCaull,  76  Va.  876:  106. 
Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  U.  S. 
358:  1198,  1199. 
v.  Oxholm,  0  M.  &  S.  99:  25. 
Wolfkell  v.  Mason,  16  Abb.  Pr.221: 

Wolsey  v.  Chapman,  101  U.  S.  755: 

Womaok   v.  Womack,  17  Tex.  1: 

Womelsdorf  v.  Heifner,  104  Pa.  St. 

1:  1055,  1354. 
Wouielsdorf  Abbey,  8  Pa.  Co.  Ct 

007:  788. 
Wood,  Ex  parte,  34  Kan.  645:  251, 

250. 
Wood,  In  re,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  306:  777. 
Wood,  In  re,  82  Mich.  75:  973. 
Wood  v.  Bank,  9  Cow.  194:  639. 
v.  Chapin,  13  N.  Y.  509:  1121. 
v.  Commonwealth,     11     Bush, 

220:  829. 
v.  Election  Com'rs,  58  Cal.  561: 

527. 
v.  Kennedy,  19    Ind.   68:    555, 

1198. 
v.  Mayor,  etc.,  34  How.  Pr.  501: 

1217. 
v.  Michigan  Air  Line  R.  R.  Co., 

81  Mich.  358:  : 
v.  Oakley,  11  Paige,  400:    1162. 
v.  Eawcliffe,  G  Hare,  191:  649. 


Wood  v.  State,  17  Ark.  188,  1  S.  W. 
709:  517. 
v.  Vernon,  8   Houst.   48:  1158, 

1165,  1295. 
v.  United  States,  10  Pet.  342: 
463,  466,  511,  993. 
Woodard  v.  Brien,  14  Lea,  520:  848, 

357. 
Woolburn  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 

Co.,  95  G  a.  808:  554. 
Woodbury    v.    Berry,   18   Ohio  St. 

45G:  701,  799,  928. 
Woodham  v.  Anderson,  32  Wash. 

500:  1227. 
Wooding  v.  Puget  Sound  National 

Bank,  11  Wash.  527:  551,  1261. 
Woodman  v.  Fulton,  47  Miss.  682: 

1211. 
Wood   Mowing,  etc.    Co.    v.   Cald- 
well, 51  Ind.  276:  882,  933 
Woodrow  v.  O'Connor,  23  Vt.  776: 

G12. 
Woodruff  v.  Kellyville  Coal   Co., 
182  111.  4S0:  305. 
v.  State,  3  Ark.  285:  G62,  1075, 
1077. 
Woods  v.  Buie,  5  How.  (Miss.)  285: 
18. 
v.  Jackson  Co.,  1  Holmes,  370: 

403. 
v.  Soucy,  166  111.  407:  1225. 
v.  State,  36  Ark.  36:  974, 
v.  Supervisors,  136  N.  Y.  403: 4G7. 
v.  Wicks,  7  Lea,  40:  25. 
Wood's  Case,  1  Co.  40a:  683. 
Woodson  v.  State,  G9  Ark.  521:  418. 
Woodstock  v.  Hooker,  6  Conn.  35: 

620. 
Woodward  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R 
Co.,  21  Wis.  : 
v.  Donally,  27  Ala.  196:  23. 
v.  Foxe,  3  Lev.  289:  1105. 
v.  London,  tt'.  By.  Co.,  3  Ex  D. 
121: 


TABLE    OF    CASES    CITED. 


cclxiit 


The  references  are  to  the  pages;  Nol.  I,  pp.  1-6041  Vol  n,  pp.  505-1315. 


Woodward  v.  Railway  Co.,  23  Wis. 
400:  1291. 
v.  Winehill,  14  Wash.  394: 1170, 
1214. 
Wood  worth     v.     Pai  tie's     Adm'r, 
Breese,  374:  832. 
v.  Spafford,  2  McLean,  168:  41, 

613. 
v.  State,  26  Ohio  St.  196:  666, 
832. 
Woolard  v.  Nashville,  108   Tenn. 

353:  1041. 
Wooley  v.  Watkins,  2  Idaho,  590: 

1179. 
Woolf  v.  Taylor,  98  Ala.  254:  267. 
Woolheather  v.  Risley,  38  Iowa,  486: 

1206,  1273. 
Woolsey  v.  Cade,  54  Ala.  378:  758, 

781. 
Wooten  v.  Commonwealth,  98  Ky. 

468:  560. 
Worcester  Bank  v.  Cheney,  94  111. 

430:  871. 
Worcester,  etc.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Com'rs,  118  Mass.  561:  1044. 
Workingmen's  Bank  v.  Converse, 

33  La.  Ann.  963:  868. 
Workingmen's  Building   Ass'n  v. 

Coleman,  89  Pa.  St.  428:  1140. 
Wormley  v.  Hamburg,  40  Iowa,  25: 

1184. 
Wormser  v.  Brown,  149  N.  Y.  163: 

661,  955. 
Worthen  v.  Badgett,  32  Ark.  496: 
85,  608. 
v.  Ratcliffe,  42  Ark.  330:  548- 
Worthen  County  Clerk  v.  Badgett, 

33  Ark.  496:  71. 
Worthley  v.  Steen,  43  N.  J.  L.  542: 

368. 
Worth  Street,  18  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  49: 1117, 

1122. 
Wortman  v.  Kleinschnidt,  12  Mont. 
316:  420. 


Wren,  Ex  parte,  63  Miss.  512:  58. 
Wright,  In  re,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  Div.  78: 

777. 
Wright,  In  re,  3  Wyo.  478:  1184. 
Wright  v.  Bolles  Woodenware  Co., 
50  Wis.  167:  971. 
v.  Bolton,  8  Ala.  548:  1247. 
v.  DelaMeld,  23  Barb.  498:  611. 
v.  Defrees,  8  Ind.  298:  925,  926. 
v.  Forrestal,  65  Wis.  341 :  335, 

684. 
v.  Frant,  4  R  &  S.  118:  799. 
v.  Hale,  6  H  &  N.  227:  642, 1225, 

1226. 
v.  Haumer,  5  Md.  375:  1249. 
v.  Hawkins,  28  Tex.  452:   625, 

872. 
v.  Nagle,  101  U.  S.  791:   1023, 

1024. 
v.  Oakley,  5  Met.  400:  445,  521. 
v.  Phillips,  2  Greene  (Iowa),  191: 

872. 
v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  80  Fed.  260: 

1160,  1167. 
v.  Sperry,  21  Wis.  331:  1117. 
v.  Williams,  1  M.  &  W.  99:  730. 
Wrightman  v.  Boone  Co.,  82  Fed. 

412:  1285,  1287. 
Wrought  Iron  Bridge  Co.  v.  Attica, 
49  Hun,  513:  302. 
v.  Attica,  119  N.  Y.  204:  191, 
205,  1237. 
Wrought  Iron  Range  Co.  v.  Carver, 

118  N.  C.  328:  96,  130. 
Wroughton  v.  Turtle,  11  M.  &  W. 

561:  998. 
Wulf  tange  v.  McCollom,  83  Ky.  361 : 

252. 
Wulzen  v.  Supervisors,  101  Cal.  15: 

6,  10,  19. 
Wunderle  v.  Wunderle,  144  I1L  40: 

31,  428. 
Wyandotte  v.    Drennan,  46  Mich. 
478:  1194. 


■ 


TABLE   »'i     0  LSI  -    01  I  ED. 


Ti.<'  reft  Vol  i.  pp.  i  BM;  Vol.  ll.  pp.  505-1315. 


Wyandotte  Co.  Com'rs^v.  Aiibott, 

69  Kan.  148:  150. 

\.  Cans  is  Citj .  etd  R.  R.  I  kx, 

5  Kan.  App.  48:  178 

Wyman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat  l :  6, 

Wynehamer  v.  People,  18  N.  Y.  373: 

1019, 
Wynkoop  v.  Co  Ksh,  89  Pa  St.  450: 

Wynne,  In  re,  Chase's  Dec.  227:  821. 
Wynne  v.   Middleton,  1  WU&  123: 
646,  1248 
v.  Wynne.  9  Swan,  405:  1000. 
Wynn-Johnson,  In  re,  1  Alaska,  630: 

186. 
Wyoming  Nat  Bank  v.  Brown,  7 

Wyo.  494:  1211. 
Wyoming  St.,  137  Pa.  St.  494:  384, 

390. 
Wyth  v.  Black  man,  1  Ves.  Sr.  197: 

761. 
Wythe  v.  Thurston,  2  Ambler,  555: 
761 

Y. 

Yahn  v.  Merritt,  117  Ala.  485:  292. 
Yale  v.  Dederer,  18  N.  Y.  271:  940. 
Yarborough  v.  Collins,  91  Tex.  306: 

.  1 7. 
Yarnell  v.  Los  Angeles,  87  CaL  603: 

Yarwood  v.  Happy,  18  Wash.  246: 

Yates  v.  Lansing,  9  John.  393:  947. 
v.  Milwaukee,  92  Wis,  352:  1004 
v.  Omaha.  58  Neb.  817:   1154. 
Yates'  Case,  4  John.  318:  778. 
Yatter  v.  Smilie,  72  Vt.  349:  933. 
Yazoo  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  132  U. 

S.  174:  654,  1004. 
Yeager  v.   Weaver,   31   How.    Pr. 
202. 
v.  Weaver,  64  Pa  St.   425:  184, 
186,  201,  211,  650. 


Yeatman   v.    King,  2  N.  D.   421: 

1190,  1208. 
Yeaton  v.  Unite  I  states,  5  Cr.  281: 

548  549,  550.  553,  654,  1178. 
Yell  v.  Lane,  41  Ark.  58:  870. 

iw  Liver  Imp.  Co.   v.  Arnold, 
46   Wis.   214:  202,   223,   230,   605. 
688 
Yerby  v.  Cochrane,   101   Ala  541: 
303,  577,  581,  600. 
v.  Lackland,  G   Har.  &  J.  446: 
1018,  1049. 
Yerger,  Ex  parte,  8  Wall.  85:  923. 
Yerke  v.  United  States.  173  U.  S. 

439:  703. 
Yo'.o  Co.   v.  Colgan,  132  Cal.   265: 

60. 
York  v.  Carlisle,  19  Tex.  Civ.  A  pp. 
269:  772. 
v.  Conde,  147  N.  Y.  486:  39. 
York  Co.  v.   Crafton,  100  Pa.   St. 

619:  654. 
York,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Queen,  1  E.  & 

B.  858:  697. 
York  Hospital  &  Dispensary  Ass'n 
v.  York  Co.,  12  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  539: 
409. 
York's  Appeal,  110  Pa  St.  69:  900. 
York's  Appeal,  17  W.  N.  C.  33:  900. 
York  School  Dist's  Appeal,  109  Pa. 

St.  70:  403. 
Young  v.    Bank    of   Alexandria,  4 
Cranch,  384:  625. 
v.  Beardsley,  11  Paige,  93:  635, 

683. 
v.  Commissioners,  137  Ind.  323: 

839. 
v.  Commonwealth,  101  Va,  853: 

134. 
v.  Falmouth,  183  Mass.  hO:  1057. 
v.  Grattridge,  L  R.  4  Q.  B.  166: 

840. 
v.  Higgon,  6  M.  &  W.   19:  327, 
229,  330. 


TABLE   OF   CASES    CITED. 


cclxv 


The  references  are  to  the  sections:  Vol.  I,  §§  1-308;  Vol.  n,  §§  309-722. 


Young  v.Hughes,  4H.  &N.  76:  641. 
v.  Martin,  2  Yeates,  312:  1046. 
v.  McKenzie,   3    Ga.    40:    862, 

1013. 
v.  Salt  Lake  City,  24  Utah,  321: 
155,  785. 
Youngblood   v.   Sexton,   32    Mich. 

406:  482. 
Youngs  v.  Ransom,  31  Barb.  49:  868. 
v.  Youngs,  130  111.  230:  749,765. 
Yturburen's  Estate,  134  CaL  567: 

42S. 
Yunger  v.  State,  78  Md.  574:  497. 
Yung  Jon,  Ex  parte,  28  Fed.  308: 
219. 

z. 

Zable  v.  Louisville  Baptist  Or- 
phans' Home,  92  Ky.  89:  624. 

Zander  v.  Coe,  5  Cal.  230:  1052. 

Zaner  v.  State,  90  Ala.  651:  463. 

Zanesville  v.  Zanesville  Tel.  &  Tel. 
Co.,  63  Ohio  St.  442:  7. 


Zanesville  v.  Zanesville  Tel.  &  Tel. 

Co.,  64  Ohio  St.  67:  8. 
Zeigler  v.  Gaddis,  44  N.  J.  L.  363: 
377,  428. 
v.  South,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  58  Ala. 
594:  927. 
Zellers  v.  White,  208  111.  518:  981. 
Zenith  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Heimbach, 

77  Minn.  97:  416. 
Zickler  v.  Union  Bank  &  T.  Co.,  104 

Tenn.  277:  466,  524,  56a 
Zimmerman  v.  Helser,  32  Md.  274: 
618. 
v.  Perkiomen,  etc  Co.,  81*  Pa. 
St.  96:  562. 
Zouch  v.  Empsey,  4  Barn.  &  Aid. 

522:  330. 
Zumstein  v.  Mullen,  67  Ohio  St.  382: 

363. 
Zurn  v.   Noedel,  113  Pa.   St.  336: 

941. 
Zwerneman  v.  Van  Rosenborg,  76 
Tex.  522:  579,  582. 


STATUTES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  LEGISLATIVE  POWER  AS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  OTHER 
SOVEREIGN  POWERS,  AND  THE  GENERAL  NATURE  OF 
STATUTORY  LAW. 

§  1.  The  order  of  subjects. —  The  elementary  nature  of 
statutory  law;  the  source  and  extent  of  its  authority;  the 
process  of  enactment;  its  commencement  and  duration,  and 
the  mode  of  proving  it,  when  necessary,  are  subjects  which 
naturally  precede  any  consideration  of  the  legal  principles 
by  which  courts  determine  its  meaning,  construction  and 
effect.  Therefore,  this  order  and  sequence  of  topics  will  be 
pursued. 

§  2.  The  three  departments  of  government  and  their 
respective  functions. —  In  our  republican  system  a  written 
constitution  is  the  great  charter  by  which  the  sovereign  peo- 
ple establish  and  maintain  government,  define,  distribute 
and  limit  its  powers.    It  is  the  organic  and  paramount  law. 

In  the  federal  constitution,  and  in  the  state  constitutions, 
the  three  fundamental  powers — the  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial  —  have  been  separated  and  organized  in  three 
distinct  departments.  This  separation  is  deemed  to  be  of 
the  greatest  importance;  absolutely  essential  to  the  existence 
of  a  just  and  free  government.1     This  is  not,  however,  such 

1  About  the  middle  of  the  last  cen-  same  body  of  magistrates,  there  can 

tury   Baron   Montesquieu   uttered  be  no  liberty,  because  apprehen- 

words  of  wisdom  to  patriots  and  sions  may  arise,  lest  the  same  mon- 

statesmen.     He  said:   "When  the  arch  or  senate  should  enact  tyran- 

legislative  and  executive  powersare  nical  laws,  to  execute  them  in  a 

united  in  the  same  person,  or  the  tyrannical  manner.     Again  there 
1 


.,1  NEK  \l.    NA  rDRK   OF    BTATl  o>i:\     i  A  w  . 


s  to  make  these  departments  wholly  independ- 
ent; but  only  so  that  one  department  shall  not  exercise  the 
power  norperform  the  functions  of  another.  They  arc  mu- 
tually dependent,  and  could  not  subsist  without  the  aid  and 


'  the  judiciary  power 
if  it   be  not  separated   from  the 
and  executive.    Were  it 
I    with    the.    legislative,   the 
life    and    liberty    of    the    Bubjeot 
would  be  exposed  to  arbitrary  con- 
trol: for  the  judge  would  be  the 
.t<>r.     Wort'   it  joined  to  the 
i    r,  the  judge  might 
behave  with  violence  and  o] 
sion.     There  would  be  an  end  of 
everything  were  the  same  man,  or 
the  same  body,  whether  of  nobles 
or  of  the  people,  to  exercise  these 
three    powers— that    of    enacting 
laws,  that  of  executing  the  public 

1  of  tryingtheoi 
of   individuals."     Spirit   of   Laws, 
B.  11,  ch.  VL 

Dr.  Paley  remarks  in  his  Moral 
Philosophy,  B.  G.  ch.  8:  "The  first 
maxim  of  a  free  state  is  that  the 
laws  be  made  by  one  set  of  men, 
and   administered  by  another;  in 
other    words,  that  the  legislative 
and   judicial    characters   be    kept 
rate.     When  these  offices  are 
united  in  the  same  person  or  as- 
ly,  particular  laws  are  made 
for  particular  cases.springing  of  ten- 
ia   partial    motives,   and 
.   to  private  ends.     Whilst 
they  are  kept  separate  general  laws 
are  made   by  one   body   of    men, 
without  foreseeing  whom  they  may 
affect:  and  when  made,  they  must 
be  applied  by  the  other,  let  them 
affect  whom  they  will." 

Blackstone,  in  his  Commentaries 
(vol.1,  H0j,  says:  "In  all  tyrannical 


governments  the  supreme  magis- 
tracy, or  the  right  both  of  making 
and  of  enforoing  laws,  is  vested  in 
the  same  man,  or  one  of  the  same 
body  of  men;  and  whenever  these 
two  powers  are  united  together, 
there  can  be  no  public  liberty.  The 
magistrate  may  enact  tyrannical 
laws  and  execute  them  in  a  tyran- 
nical manner,  since  he  is  possessed, 
in  quality  of  dispenser  of  justice, 
with  all  the  power  which  he  as 
legislator  thinks  proper  to  give 
himself.  But  when  the  legislative 
and  executive  authority  are  in  dis- 
tinct hands,  the  former  will  take 
care  not  to  intrust  the  latter  with 
so  large  a  power  as  may  tend  to 
the  subversion  of  its  own  independ- 
ence, and  therewith  of  the  liberty 
of  the  subject." 

He  also  says  in  another  part  of 
his  Commentaries  (vol.  1,  2(Jii):  "In 
this  distinct  and  separate  existence 
of  tho  judicial  power  in  a  peculiar 
holy  of  men,  nominated  indeed, 
but  not  removable  at  pleasure 
by  the  crown,  consists  one  main 
preservative  of  the  public  liberty, 
which  cannot  subsist  long  in  any 
state  unless  the  administration  of 
common  justice  be  in  some  degree 
separated  both  from  the  legislative 
and  also  from  the  executive  power. 
Were  it  joined  with  the  legislative, 
the  life,  liberty,  and  property  of 
the  subject  would  be  in  the  hands 
of  arbitrary  judges,  whose  decis- 
ions would  be  then  regulated  only 
by  their  own  opinions,  and  not  by 


GENERAL   NATURE   OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  6 

co-operation  of  each  other.  Under  the  constitutions  the  leg- 
islature is  empowered  to  make  laws;  it  has  that  power  ex- 
clusively; the  executive  has  the  power  to  carry  them  by  all 
executive  acts  into  effect,  and  the  judiciary  has  the  exclu- 
sive power  to  expound  them  as  the  law  of  the  land  between 
suitors  in  the  administration  of  justice.  The  legislature  can 
do  no  executive  acts,  but  it  can  legislate  to  regulate  the  ex- 
ecutive office,  prescribe  laws  to  the  executive  which  that 
department,  and  every  grade  of  its  officers,  must  obey.  The 
legislature  cannot  decide  cases,  but  it  can  pass  laws  which 
will  furnish  the  basis  of  decision,  and  the  courts  are  bound 
to  obey  them.2  The  functions  of  each  branch  areas  distinct 
as  the  stomach  and  lungs  in  our  bodies.  They  are  intended 
to  co-operate;  not  to  be  antagonistic;  they  are  functions  in 
the  same  system;  when  each  functionary  does  its  appropri- 
ate work  no  interference  or  conflict  is  possible.3 

§3.  A  distinguished  writer  and  jurist  says:  ""When  we 
speak  of  a  separation  of  the  three  great  departments  of  the 
government,  and  maintain  that  that  separation  is  indispen- 
sable to  public  liberty,  we  are  to  understand  this  maxim  in  a 
limited  sense.  It  is  not  meant  to  affirm  that  they  must  be 
kept  wholly  and  entirely  separate  and  distinct,  and  have  no 
common  link  of  connection  or  dependence,  the  one  upon  the 
other,  in  the  slightest  degree.  The  true  meaning  is,  that  the 
whole  power  of  one  of  these  departments  should  not  be  exer- 
cised by  the  same  hands  which  possess  the  whole  power  of 
either  of  the  other  departments;  and  that  such  exercise  of 
the  whole  would  subvert  the  principles  cf  a  free  constitu- 
tion.    This  has  been  shown  with  great  clearness  and  accu- 

any  fundamental  principles  of  law;  speaking  of  the  legislative  and  ju- 
which,  though  legislators  may  de-  dicial  powers,  said:  "It  is  a  well- 
part  from,  yet  judges  are  bound  to  settled  axiom  that  the  union  of 
observe.  Were  it  joined  with  the  these  two  powers  is  tyranny."  Fed- 
executive,  this  union  might  soon  eralist,  No.  47. 
be  an  overbalance  for  the  legis-  2 Smith  v.  Judge,  17  Cal.  557. 
lative."  3  Reiser  v.  The  Wm.  Tell  S.  F. 

In  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  John.  Asso.,  39  Pa.  St.  147. 
508,  5  Am.  Dec.  291,  Kent,  C.  J., 


t  OEN]  R  \i     naii  BE   OF   BTAT1  i<'i;y    LAW. 

raoy  by  the  author  of  the  Federalist.4     It  was  obviously  the 

view  taken  of  the  subject  by  Montesquieu  and  Blaokstone 

in  their  commentaries;  For  they  were  cadi  Bpeaking  with  ap- 

of  a  constitution  of  government  which  embraced 

this  division  of  powers  in  a  general  view;  but  which  at  the 
same  tunc  established  an  occasional  mixture  of  each  with  the 
others,  and  a  mutual  dependency  of  each  upon  the  others. 

-  [ghtest  examination  of  the  British  constitution  will  at 
once  convince  us  that  the  legislative,  executive  and  judiciary 
departments  are  by  no  means  totally  distinct  and  separate 
from  each  other.  The  executive  magistrate  forms  an  integral 
part  of  the  Legislative  department ;  for  parliament  consists  of 
lords  and  commons;  and  no  law  can  be  passed  except  by 

onsent  of  the  king.  Indeed,  he  possesses  certain  prerog- 
atives, such  as,  for  instance,  that  of  making  foreign  treaties, 
by  which  he  can  to  a  limited  extent  impart  to  them  a  legisla- 

.orce  and  operation.  He  also  possesses  the  sole  appoint- 
ing power  to  the  judicial  department,  though  tho  judges, 
when  once  appointed,  are  not  subject  to  his  will  or  power  of 

►val.  The  house  of  lords  also  constitutes  not  only  a  vital 
and  independent  branch  of  the  legislature,  but  is  also  a  great 
constitutional  council  of  the  executive  magistrate,  and  is  in 
the  last  resort  the  highest  appellate  judicial  tribunal.  Again, 
the  other  branch  of  the  legislature,  the  commons,  possess  in 
some  sort  a  portion  of  the  executive  and  judicial  power,  in 
exercising  the  power  of  accusation  by  impeachment;  and  in 
this  case,  as  also  in  the  trial  of  peers,  the  house  of  lords  sits 
as  a  grand  court  of  trial  for  public  offenses.  The  powers  of 
the  judiciary  department  are  indeed  more  narrowly  con  lined 
to  their  own  proper  sphere.  Yet  still  the  judges  occasion- 
ally assist  in  the  deliberations  of  the  house  of  lords  by  giv- 
ing their  opinion  upon  matters  of  law  referred  to  them  for 
advice;  and  thus  they  may,  in  some  sort,  be  deemed  assess- 
ors to  the  lords  in  their  legislative  as  well  as  judicial  capac- 
-  co-ordinate  branches  of  one  government  they  are 
politically  connected  and  bound  together;  but  their  powers 

■j.  42.  5  Story  on  Const,  §  525. 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  0 

and  functions  are  not  blended;  they  occupy  no  common 
ground,  nor  do  they  exercise  any  concurrent  jurisdiction. 

To  some  extent,  and  for  certain  purposes,  the  powers  ap- 
propriate in  their  nature  to  one  department  are  exercised 
by  each  of  the  others;  sometimes  by  express  direction  of 
the  supreme  law;6  but  otherwise  only  when  it  is  done  in- 
cidentally or  as  a  means  of  exercising  its  own  proper  power.7 

§  4.  Usually  the  constitution  not  only  creates  the  three 
departments,  but  provides  that  those  composing  one  depart- 
ment shall  not  exercise  any  of  the  powers  properly  belong- 
ing to  either  of  the  others.  But  it  has  been  held  that  this 
prohibition  is  implied  by  the  division  into  departments,  so 
that  the  effect  is  the  same  whether  the  prohibition  is  ex- 
pressed or  not.8  Any  statute  which  attempts  to  confer 
powers,  or  impose  duties,  upon  one  department  which  prop- 
erly belong  to  the  others,  violates  the  constitution  and  is 


estate  v.  Clapp,  50  Minn.  239,  52 
N.  W.  655. 

*  Taylor  v.  Place,  4  R.  I.  324;  Wat- 
kins  v.  Holman,  16  Pet.  60,  61,  10 
L.  Ed.  873;  Wyman  v.  Southard,  10 
Wheat.  1,  6  L.  Ed.  253;  The  Aud- 
itor v.  Atchison,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  6 
Kan.  500,  7  Am.  R.  575;  Flint,  etc. 
P.  R.  Co.  v.  Woodhull,  25  Mich.  99, 
12  Am.  Rep.  233.  The  distribution 
of  the  powers  of  government  into 
the  legislative,  executive  and  judi- 
cial departments,  and  the  appro- 
priate sphere  of  each,  are  elabo- 
rately discussed  in  the  following 
cases:  Fox  v.  McDonald,  101  Ala. 
51,  13  So.  416,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  98, 
21  L.  R.  A.  529;  Greenwood  Cem. 
Land  Co.  v.  Routt,  17  Colo.  156,  28 
Pac.  1125,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  284,  15 
L.  R.  A.  369;  People  v.  Thompson, 
155  111.  451,  40  N.  E.  307;  People  v. 
Chase,  165  111.  527.  46  N.  E.  454; 
State  v.  Hyde,  121  Ind.  20,  22  N.  E. 
614;  State  v.  Peelle,  121  Ind.  49.1.  22 


N.  E.  654;  State  v.  Gorby,  122  Ind. 
17,  23  N.  E.  678;  State  v.  Barker, 
116  Iowa,  96,  89  N.  W.  204;  State 
v.  Johnson,  61  Kan.  803,  60  Pac. 
1068;  State  v.  Higgins,  125  Mo.  364, 
28  S.  W.  638;  Albright  v.  Fisher, 
164  Mo.  56,  64  S.  W.  106;  Carter  v. 
Commonwealth,  96  Va.  791,  812,  32 
S.  E.  780,  45  L.  R.  A.  310.  "  The 
powers  of  these  departments  are  not 
merely  equal,  they  are  exclusive, 
in  respect  to  the  duties  assigned  to 
each,  and  they  are  absolutely  inde- 
pendent of  each  other.  The  en- 
croachment of  one  of  these  depart- 
ments upon  the  other  is  watched 
with  jealous  care,  and  is  generally 
promptly  resisted,  for  the  observ- 
ance of  this  division  is  essential  to 
the  maintenance  of  a  republican 
form  of  government."  Langenberg 
v.  Decker,  131  Ind.  471,  478,  31  N.  E. 
190,  16  L.  R  A.  108. 

8  State  v.  Johnson,  61  Kan.  803, 
60  Pac.  1068. 


.    i;  \i     naii  RE    OF   BTA  i'i  i"i:v    law. 


But  ii"  exaot  and  complete  delimitation  of  the  sev- 
eral departments  has  yet  been  worked  out,  and  the  courts 
differ  as  to  the  proper  assignment  of  various  governmental 

functions.  Some  courts  hold  that  tho  power  of  appointing 
political  officers  may  be  devolved  upon  any  one  of  tho  de- 
ents  including  the  judiciary.10  other  courts  hold  that 
conferring  this  power  upon  courts  or  judges  arc  void.11 
It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  power  of  appointment 
to  office  is  not  exclusively  executive  in  its  nature,12  but  it 


BWulzen  v.  Board  of  Supervis- 

01  Cat  15,  35  Pac.  353,  40  Am. 

st.   Rep  IT:    People  v.  Chase,  165 

111.  527,  46  X.  1'.  154;  People  v. 
Mallary,  195  III.  582,  63  X.  B.  508, 
88  Am.  SI  Rep  212;  State  v.  Carr, 
129  1,,  i  44,  88  X.  I-  88,  38  Am.  St 
:;  1..  W.  A.    177:   Lai 

131  Ind.  471,  31  N. 

•  i.  16  L.   R    A.    108;    State  v. 

Barker,  116   la.  96,  89  X.  W.  204; 

In  re  Sims,  51  Kan.  1,  ;J7  Pac.  135, 

m.  si.  Rep  261,25  L.R.A.110; 

In  re  Huron,  58  Kan.   152,  48  Pac. 

:;ti  L.  R.  A.  822;  In  re  Davis, 

58  Kan.  368,  49  Pac.  160;  State  v. 

q,  61  Kan.  803,  60  Pac.  1068; 

v.    Wallace  Co.   Com'rs,   62 

Kan.   -    I,  62  Pac.   667,  84  Am.  St. 

.    .    Missouri,  Kan.    &  Tex. 

Ry.  Ca   v.  Simonson,  64  Kan.  802, 

.   653,  91   Am.  St.  Rep.  248; 

In    re  Durnford,   7  Kan.    App.  89, 

.    '.<.:    Roberta  v.  liackney, 

S  W.  810;  Robey  v. 

.  -  Co..  '.i.'  Md.   15",  -is 

yv.Ridout94Md.641, 

tl.  01;  State  v.  Washburn,  167 

i  -    .'.■  ■  »2,90Am.St  Rep 

I  n  re  Ridgefield  Park,  54  N.  J.  L. 

•    674;  Moreau  v.  Freehold- 

f  Monmouth,  »;■<  X.  J.  I.  B0,  53 

ir/.  v.  Dover,  68  X.  J. 

1.  :  A  tl.  -:l 4;  People  v.  "Waters, 


4  Misc.  1,  23  N.  Y.  S.  691;  State  v. 
Commissioners,  54  Ohio  St  333,  43 
X.  K.  587;  State  v.  Guilbert,  56  Ohio 
St.  575.  47  N.  E.  551,  60  Am.  St.  Rep. 
756;  Commonwealth  v.  Warwick. 
172  Pa.  St.  140,  33  Atl.  373;  Carter 
v.  Commonwealth,  96  Va.  791.  82 
S.  K  780,  45  L.  R.  A.  310;  Arkle  v. 
Board  of  Com'rs,  41  W.  Va.  471,  23 
S.  E.  804;  In  re  Incorporation  of 
North  Milwaukee,  93  Wis.  616,  67 
X.  W.  1033,  33  L.  R,  A.  638;  United 
States  v.  Queen,  105  Fed.  269. 

i«  Fox  v.  McDonald,  101  Ala  51, 
13  So.  416.  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  98,  21  L. 
R.  A.  529;  Roberts  v.  Cain,  97  Ky. 
31  &  W.  729;  State  v.  George, 
22  Ore.  142.  29  Pac.  356,  29  Am.  St. 
Rep.  586,  16  L.  R.  A.  737. 

ii  State  v.  Barker,  116  la.  96,  89 
N.  W.  204;  Beasley  v.  Ridout,  94  Md. 
641,  52  Atl.  61 ;  Schwarz  v.  Dover,  68 
N.  J.  L.  570,  53  Atl.  214.  In  the  last 
case  it  is  held  to  make  no  differ- 
ence whether  the  court  is  one  pro- 
vided for  by  the  constitution  or 
created  by  the  legislature.  But  in 
the  case  first  cited  it  is  stated, 
though  not  held,  that  "courts 
which  are  not  provided  for  by  the 
constitution  may  he  authorized  to 
discharge  functions  that  are  ex- 
ecutive or  legislative  in  character." 

12  State  v.  Hyde,  121  Ind.  20,  22 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  7 

is  generally  held  that  it  may  be  exercised  by  the  legislative 
department.13  Various  functions  may  be  devolved  upon 
courts  or  judges  in  the  matter  of  the  incorporation  of  cities, 
towns  and  villages,  the  removal  of  county  seats  and  the 
like,14  but  the  ultimate  question  of  the  expediency  of  such 
removal  or  incorporation,  or  the  determination  of  the  terri- 
tory to  be  included  within  a  municipality,  is  legislative  in 
character  and  cannot  be  devolved  upon  the  judiciary.15  A 
statute  of  Ohio  in  regard  to  the  use  of  streets  by  telegraph 
and  telephone  companies  provided  that,  if  the  company  and 
municipality  could  not  agree  upon  the  mode  of  construc- 
tion, the  former  might  apply  to  the  probate  court,  which 
should  direct  in  what  mode  the  line  should  be  constructed, 
so  as  not  to  incommode  the  public  in  the  use  of  the  street. 
The  act  provided  for  a  petition,  notice,  hearing  and  order  or 
decree,  in  the  usual  manner  of  judicial  proceedings.  At 
first  the  act  was  held  void  as  an  attempt  to  confer  legisla- 
tive power  on  the  judicial  department,  but  on  rehearing  the 
act  was  sustained.16     An  act  requiring  the  judges  of  certain 

N.  E.  644;  State  v.  Peelle,  121  Ind.  Americus  v.  Perry,  114  Ga.  871,  40 

495,  22  N.  E.  654;  State  v.  Gorby,  S.  E.  1004;  Sinking  Fund   Com'rs 

122  Ind.  17,  23  N.  E.  678.    In  State  v.  George,  104  Ky.  260,  47  S.  W.  779, 

v.  Washburn,  167  Mo.  680.  67  S.  W.  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  454;  Eddy  v.  Kin- 

592,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  430,  a  law  re-  caid,  28  Ore.  537,  41  Pac.  156,  655; 

quiring  the   governor  to  appoint  State  v.   George,   22  Ore.    152,   29 

one  of  three  election  commission-  Pac.  356,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  586,  16  L. 

ers  for  a  city  from  three  persons  to  R.  A.  737;   State   v.    Compson,   34 

be  named  by  a  party  central  com-  Ore.  25,  54  Pac.  349;  Reed  v.  Dun- 

mittee  was  held  void  as  an  attempt  bar,  41  Ore.  509,  69  Pac.  451. 

by  the  legislature  to  exercise  the  14  State  v.  Ueland,  30  Minn.  29. 

appointing  power.     The  court,  sit-  14  N.  W.  58;  Todd  v.  Rustad,  43 

ting  in  lane,  says:  "The  act  of  fill-  Minn.  500,  46  N.  W.  73;  In  re  Town 

ing  a  public  office  by  appointment  of  Union  Mines,  39  W.  Va.  179,  19 

is  essentially  an  administrative  or  S.  E.  398. 

executive  act,  and,  under  the  con-  15  In  re  Ridgefield  Park,  54  N.  J. 

stitution,  can  be  exercised  only  by  L.  288,  23  Atl.  674;  In  re  Incorpo- 

an  officer  charged  with  the  duty  ration  of  North  Milwaukee,  93  \Y is. 

of  executing  the  laws."     p.  696.  616,  67  N.  W.  1033,  33  L.  R.  A.  638. 

is  People  v.  Freeman,  80  Cal.  233,  i«Zanesville  v.  Zanesville  Tel.  & 

22  Pac.  178,   13  Am.  St.  Rep.  122;  Tel.  Co.,  63  Ohio  St.  442,  59  N.  E 


3 


GKNKKAL    NATUR]     OF    STATUTORY    LAW. 


courts  to  divide  a  oity  into  districts  for  the  election  Of  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  was  held  valid.17  So  of  an  act  requiring 
the  county  judge  to  fix  the  number  of  deputies  to  be  em- 

1  by  certain  officers."  A  law  requiring  the  plans  I'or 
a  court-house  and  jail  to  he  approved  by  the  judge  of  the 
circuit  court  was  held  valid,1'1  but  a  law  authorizing  a  judge 
of  the  supreme  court  to  designate  the  location  and  deter- 
mine the  [dans  and  specifications  for  a  court-house  was  held 

as  an  attempt  to  confer  Legislative  power.-0  An  act 
making  the  judge  of  a  cit}'  court  ex  officio  commissioner  of 
roads  and  revenues  for  the  county  was  held  valid.-'1  An 
act  requiring  railroad  companies  to  erect  and  operate  gates 
at  crossings,  when  ordered  to  do  so  by  the  supreme  court 
on  the  application  of  the  local  authorities  and  alter  notice 
to  the  company,  was  held  not  to  confer  legislative  power 
upon  the  court.-2    An  act  of  Maryland   providing  that  on 


109;  on  rehearing,  64  Ohio  St.  G7, 
■:  Am.  St.  Rep.  547,52 
L.  R.  A.  150.  On  rehearing  the 
court  says:  "The  institution  and 
prosecution  of  a  legal  proceeding 
in  court  plainly  comprehends  the 
filing  of  a  proper  complaint,  pre- 
fer bringing  the  necessary 
parties  into  court,  and  judicial  in- 
quiry according  to  the  usual  rules 
and  practice  of  courts.  And  this 
fact,  alone,  of  conferring  on  a  ju- 
dicial tribunal  in  the  first  instance 
the  power  to  act  in  a  given  matter 
controlling  importance  in  giv- 
ing judicial  character  to  the  nat- 
ure of  the  power;  though  that  is 
not  necessarily  a  conclusive  test, 
t«.r.  if  it  were,  the  existence  of  a 
statut  establish  its  validity; 

but  it  is  decisive  in  that  respect, 
•  it  i1-  reasonably  certain  that 
the  power  be''  naively  to 

the  legislative  or  executive  depart- 
ment.   .    .    .    The  principle  obvi- 
.    i-.  that  where  any   power   is 


conferred  upon  a  court  of  just  ice, 
to  be  exercised  by  it  as  a  court,  in 
the  manner  and  with  the  formali- 
ties used  in  its  ordinary  proceed- 
ings, the  action  of  said  court  is  to 
be  regarded  as  judicial,  irrespect- 
ive of  the  original  nature  of  the 
power.  The  legislature,  by  confer- 
ring any  particular  power  upon  a 
court,  virtually  declares  that  it 
considers  it  a  power  which  may  be 
most  appropriately  exercised  under 
the  modes  and  forms  of  judicial 
proceedings."    pp.  83,  84. 

"  State  v.  Higgins,  125  Mo.  364, 
28  S.  W.  638. 

i«  Clark  v.  Finley,  93  Tex.  171.  54 
S.  W.  843. 

19  Board  of  Com'rs  v.  Brown,  147 
Ind.  476,  46  N.  E.  908. 

-u  Morsau  v.  Freeholders  of  Mon- 
mouth, 68  N.  J.  L.  480. 

->  Phinizy  v.  Eve,  108  Ga.  360,  33 
S.  E.  1007. 

'-"-'  People  v.  Long  Island  R  R.  Co., 
1 3 1  N.  V.  506,  :;i  N.  E.  873.  The  court 


GENKKAL    NATUKE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW. 


the  petition  to  the  circuit  court  of  a  certain  proportion  of 
the  registered  and  qualified  voters  of  a  specified  county,  or 
of  any  election  district,  city  or  town  thereof,  asking  that 
the  question  of  granting  or  not  granting  licenses  for  the 
sale  of  liquors  be  submitted  at  the  next  general  election  to 
be  held  in  the  county,  the  court  shall  issue  an  order  for  an 
election  on  that  question  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  who 
shall  give  notice  of  the  election,  etc.,  was  held  void,  as  im- 
posing duties  on  the  court  not  of  a  judicial  nature.23  An  act 
of  the  same  state  making  the  court  crier,  an  officer  ap- 
pointed by  the  court,  custodian  of  the  court-house  and  re- 
sponsible for  its  care,  was  held  void  as  indirectly  imposing 
upon  the  court  the  appointment  of  such  custodian.24  Fur- 
ther illustrations  are  noted  in  the  margin.25  The  legislature 
may  not  itself  exercise  judicial  power,26  or  invade  or  en- 


says:  "No  legislative  power  was 
given  to  the  court.  But  the  statute 
made  the  erection  and  operation  of 
gates  by  railroad  companies  at 
places  coming  within  those  men- 
tioned, dependent  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  them  for  the  safety  of  travel 
upon  the  streets,  to  be  ascertained 
and  determined  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided; and  where  the  order  is  so 
made  by  the  court,  the  statute  is 
effective  to  enforce  the  duty  of 
compliance  with  it.  This  is  a  con- 
dition not  upon  which  the  taking 
effect  of  the  act  is  dependent,  but 
upon  which  its  application  becomes 
effectual  for  the  purpose  and  at  the 
places  within  its  contemplation. 
...     pp.  507,  508. 

"  The  act  in  question  has  the  im- 
port of  a  perfect  statute.  And  the 
fact  that  its  operation  in  the  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  cases  which  might 
arise  is  dependent  upon  prescribed 
contingencies,  furnishes  no  con- 
stitutional objection  to  it."    p.  508. 


23  Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Todd,  97 
Md.  247. 

24  Prince  George's  County  v. 
Mitchell,  97  Md.  330. 

25  Acts  held  invalid  as  attempts 
to  impose  upon  courts  or  judges 
non- judicial  functions:  Robey  v. 
Prince  George's  County,  92  Md.  150, 
48  Atl.  48;  People  v.  Waters,  4  Misc. 
1,  23  N.  Y.  S.  691;  United  States  v. 
Queen,  105  Fed.  269.  Acts  held 
valid,  though  conferring  powers 
outside  of  the  ordinary  judicial 
functions:  Stevens  v.  Truman,  127 
Cal.  155,  59  Pac.  397;  McCrea  v. 
Roberts,  89,  Md.  238,  43  Atl.  39,  44 
L.  R.  A.  485;  Citizens'  Savings  Bank 
v.  Green,  173  N.  Y.  215,  65  N.  E.  978; 
Campbellsville  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hub- 
bert,  112  Fed.  718,  50  C.  C.  A.  435; 
Dinsmore  v.  State,  61  Neb.  418,  85 
N.  W.  445.  And  see  Moynihan's  Ap- 
peal, 75  Conn.  358,  53  Atl.  1123. 

26  Felix  v.  Wallace  Co.  Com'rs, 
62  Kan.  832,  62  Pac.  667,  84  Am.  St. 
Rep.  424;  Commonwealth  v.  War- 


GEXKKAL  NATURE  OF  BTATI  M>KY  LAW. 


croach  upon  the  Bphere  of  the  judicial  department.*7  The 
:        r  to  punish   for  oontempt  is  judicial  and  cannot  bo 

erred  upon  administrative  officers88  or  a  legislative 
committee.89  This  power  is  held  to  be  inherent  in  courts 
and  one  of  which  they  cannot  be  deprived  by  the  legisla- 
tniv.  '  The  power  to  hear  charges  against  public  officers, 
and  remove  them  for  cause,  may  be  exercised  by  legislative 
or  executive  officers.81    So  administrative  and  executive  offi- 

and  boards  may  be  authorized  to  inquire  into  and  de- 
termine farts,  conditions  and  qualifications,  for  the  purpose 
of  applying  and  carrying  into  effect  acts  passed  by  the 
legislature.32     But  sometimes  acts  of  this  nature  go  too  far 


wick.  17-:  Pa.  St.   140.  30  Atl.  373; 

v.  Carr,  129  1ml.  44,  38  N.  E, 

-  Am.  St.  Rep,  163,  13  L  R  A. 

-'•  Wulzen  v.  Board  of  Supervis- 
■1  CaL  I"-.  35  Pac.  853,  in  Am. 
Bt  Rep.  IT;  -Missouri,  Kan.  &  Tex. 
By.  Co.  v.  Simonson,  64  Kan.  802,  68 
Pac.  05:'..  01  Am.  St  Pep.  248.  Com- 
pare the   following  in  which   the 
n<ns  in  question  were  held  valid: 
People  v.  Hayne,  83  Cal.   Ill,  23 
Pac.  1.  17  Am.  St.  Pep.  217;  Town- 
send  v.  State,  147  Iml.  024,  47  N.  E. 
!    A    ;.  St.  Rep  477,  87  L.  R  A. 
People   v.  Cannon,  139  X.  Y. 
I  N.  E.  759,36  Am.  St  Rep.  668; 
McElwee  v.  McElwee,  (J7Te»n.  649, 
W.  560.  In  Slaughter  v.  Louis- 
ville. 89  Ky.   112.  8  S.  W.  917,  the 
t  of  property  was  held  to 
he  a   ministerial    act,    which   the 
lature  could  not  perform  di- 

-•  Langenb  ru;  v.  Dicker,  131  Ind. 
I  N.  EL  190,  16  L  R,  A.  108;  In 
I-.  54  Kan.  1,  :;7  Pac.  li 

>61,  25  L  l;.  A.  110; 
In  re  Buron,  58  Kan.  152,  is  Pac. 
:,7i.  36   I-    R.  A.   822;   Roberts  v. 


Hackney,  109  Ky.  265,  58  S.  W.  810; 
People  v.  Leubischer,  34  App.  Div. 
077.  .".I  X.  Y.  S. 

29  In  re  Davis,  58  Kan.  368, 49  Pac. 
160. 

30  Carter  v.  Commonwealth,  96 
Va.  791,  32  S.  E.  780,  45  L.  R  A.  310; 
State  v.  Shepherd,  177  Mo.  205. 

31  Croly  v.  Sacramento,  119  Cal. 
229,  51  Pac.  323;  Lynch  v.  Chase,  55 
Kan.  367,  40  Pac.  666;  Gibbs  v. 
Board  of  Aldermen,  99  Ky.  490,  36 
S.  W.  524;  State  v.  Smith,  35  Neb. 
13,  52  N.  W.  700;  State  v.  Hay,  45 
Neb.  321,  63  N.  W.  821;  State  v. 
Common  Council,  90  Wis.  612,  64 
N.  W.  304.  The  contrary  is  held  in 
Arkle  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  41  W.  Va. 
471,  23  S.  E.  804,  as  to  the  removal 
of  justices  of  the  peace  on  chai 

MBowen  v.  Clifton,  105  Ga»  459, 
31  S.  E.  147;  People  v.  Kipley,  171 
111.  44,  49  N.  EL  229;  State  v.  P 
60  Kan.  664,  57  Pac.  514;  Tyler  v. 
'  lourt  of  Registration.  175  Mass.  71, 
55  -N.  K.  812;  Northrup  v.  Maneka, 
126  Mich.  550,  85  N.  W.  1128;  State 
v.  Batchaway,  115  Mo.  36,  21  S.  W. 
1081;  France  v.  State,  57  Ohio  St.  1, 
47  N.  E  1041;  People  v.  Hasbrouck, 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW. 


11 


and  attempt  to  confer  judicial  power  in  violation  of  the 


11  Utah,  291,  39  Pac.  918;  E.  A. 
Chatfield  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  110 
Fed.  788;  Niagara  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Cornell,  110  Fed.  816;  Meffert  v. 
Medical  Board,  66  Kan.  710,  72  Pac. 
247.  In  France  v.  State,  57  Ohio 
St.  1,  47  N.  E.  1041,  the  court,  in 
speaking  of  the  powers  and  duties 
conferred  upon  the  state  board  of 
medical  registration  and  exami- 
nation, says:  "It  would  be  difficult 
to  draw  the  precise  line  between 
those  functions  that  may  be  con- 
stitutionally devolved  upon  the 
other  departments  and  those  which 
pertain  strictly  to  the  judiciary; 
and  so  far  as  we  are  aware  the  at- 
tempt has  not  been  made.  But  in 
numerous  instances,  from  an  early 
period  in  the  history  of  the  state, 
the  legislature  has  invested  various 
boards,  bodies  and  officers  with  the 
power,  and  charged  them  with  the 
duty,  of  ascertaining  facts,  and 
hearing  and  deciding  questions, 
when  deemed  necessary  or  exped- 
ient, in  order  to  carry  into  execu- 
tion laws  enacted  to  accomplish 
some  public  need  or  purpose,  or 
deemed  for  the  public  good.  Of  this 
nature  are  those  powers  conferred 
upon  boards  of  county  commission- 
ers and  township  trustees,  to  deter- 
mine upon  the  necessity  and  pro- 
priety of  establishing,  improving, 
altering  and  vacating  public  roads 
and  ditches,  and  to  ascertain  and 
decide  whether  the  necessary  steps 
required  by  the  law  have  been 
taken  in  the  proceedings;  also, 
those  with  which  other  boards  and 
officers  have  been  clothed  to  deter- 
mine which  of  several  bidders  for 


public  works  or  contracts  is  the 
lowest,  responsibleone;  those  which 
authorize  county  auditors  to  make 
additions  to  tax  duplicates,  and 
many  others  of  a  kindred  nature 
which  might  be  mentioned:  all  re- 
quiring in  some  manner  and  de- 
gree, and  for  some  purpose,  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  to  hear  and  de- 
termine important  questions,  some- 
times involving  large  interests. 
.  .  .  The  powers  of  the  board 
bear  a  close  analogy  to  those  of 
boards  of  school  examiners,  who 
are  authorized  to  grant  certificates 
to  teach  in  the  public  schools  to 
applicants  who  are  found,  on  ex- 
amination, to  possess  the  necessary 
qualifications  and  furnish  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  good  moral  char- 
ter; and  to  revoke  any  certificate 
.granted,  for  intemperance,  immoral 
conduct,  or  any  other  good  cause. 
These  boards,  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duties,  do  not  exercise  the 
judicial  power  which  the  constitu- 
tion reserves  to  the  courts,  but  are 
public  agencies  designated  by  the 
state  to  aid  in  making  its  common 
school  system  effective.  And  the 
medical  board  is  but  an  agency  of 
like  character,  clothed  with  simi- 
lar powers,  to  ensure  the  effective 
execution  of  a  law  designed  for  the 
promotion  of  the  public  health  and 
welfare.  The  purpose  of  the  stat- 
ute undoubtedly  is,  by  enforcing 
the  requirements  it  has  prescribed 
for  the  admission  of  persons  to  the 
practice  of  medicine  in  the  state, 
to  prevent  those  from  engaging  in 
the  practice  of  that  profession  who, 
from  lack  of  proper  knowledge  or 


1-  OBNEBAJ     naiiki:   OF   BTATUTOB?    i..\\v. 

constitution."  Courts  cannot  compel  the  legislature  to  act 
nor  control  its  action  in  matters  committed  to  its  discre- 
tion." The  Etame  provision  of  the  constitution  protects 
municipal  Legislatures  from  interference  by  the  courts  and 
they  may  not  enjoin  the  passage  of  ordinances.35 

5  I  .  The  whole  legislative  power  delegated  to  the 
federal  government  is  vested  in  congress,  with  the  excep- 
tions made  in  the  constitution,  as  in  the  instance  of  making 
treaties.  Congress  has  only  enumerated  powers;  the  resi- 
due is  retained  by  the  states,  and  is  vested  by  their  consti- 
tutions in  their  legislatures,  subject  to  restrictions  and  lim- 
itations in  the  federal  constitution  and  that  of  the  particu- 
lar state.  In  creating  a  legislative  department  of  a  state 
. « -rii  1  in  -Tit,  and  conferring  upon  it  the  legislative  power, 
the  people  must  be  understood  to  have  conferred  the  full 
and  complete  power  as  it  rests  in,  and  may  be  exercised 
by,  the  sovereign  power  of  any  country,  subject  only  to 
such  restrictions  as  they  may  have  seen  lit  to  impose,  and 
to  the  limitations  which  are  contained  in  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.36  A  state  legislature  has  plenary 
power  of  legislation  and  may  pass  any  and  all  laws  not  pro- 
want  of  moral  rectitude,  are  unfit  34  People  v.  Thompson,  155111.  451, 
to  be  intrusted  with  its  important    40  N.  E.  307. 

and  responsible  duties.  The  power  35 1  Dill.  Munic.  Corp.,  §  308.  n.; 
to  pass  upon  the  qualifications  re-  Albright  v.  Fisher,  101  Jlo.  56,  '11 
quired  must  necessarily  be  com-  S.  W.  10G.  Contra:  Trading  Stamp 
mit  ted  to  some  board  or  body  other  Co.  v.  Memphis;  101  Term.  181,  47 
than  the  legislature,  and  maybe,  S.  W.  136.  In  the  following  cases  it 
not  inaptly,  characterized  as  ad-  was  held  that  mandamus  would 
niinistrutive,  rather  than  judicial,  lie  to  compel  the  president  of  a  city 
within  the  meaning  of  the  consti-  to  sign  ordinances  duly  passed: 
union.''     pp.  18,  19.  State  v.    Meier,   72   Mo.  App.  018; 

;.le  v.  Chase,  165  III.  527,  40  Dreyfus  v.  Lanergan,  73  Mo.  App. 
N.  EL  154:  People  v.  Mallory,  195  336.  See  1  Dill.  Munic.  Corp.  408, 
III.    582,  0:5   N.   i:.  508.  88  Am.  St.     note. 

Rep.  212;   Enre   Durnford,  7    Kan.        ae  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  (4th  ed.) 

Api  ic.  92;  State  v.  Guil-    100;  Donnell  ▼.  State,  48  Misa  G79, 

i75,   17  X.   K.  551,     12  Am.  Hep.  375:  Governor  v.  Mc- 

Rep.756.  Ewen,5IIumph.  241;Knoxville,etc. 

R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hicks,  9  Bast.  442. 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW. 


13 


hibited  by  the  constitution  of  the  state  or  of  the  United 
States.37  So  all  the  executive  power  which  can  be  exercised 
is  vested  in  the  executive  department,  and  all  the  operative 
judicial  power  in  the  judiciary  department.38 

§  6  (5).  The  judicial  power. —  The  power  which  is  en- 
tirely and  exclusively  vested  in  the  judiciary  department 
is  the  power  conferred  on  judicial  courts  and  tribunals  to 
administer  punitive  and  remedial  justice  to  and  between 
persons  subject  to,  or  claiming  rights  under,  the  law  of  the 
land.  The  exercise  of  this  power  includes  invariably  actor, 
reus,  and  judex,  regular  allegations,  opportunity  to  answer, 
and  a  trial  according  to  some  settled  course  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings. It  is  part  of  this  judicial  power  to  determine 
what  the  law  is;  and  all  questions  involving  the  validity 
and  effect  of  statutes  when  thus  determined  are  authorita- 
tively settled.39 


37  Sheppard  v.  Dowling,  127  Ala. 
.1,  28  So.  791,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  68; 
Mitchell  v.  Winkek,  117  Cal.  520,  49 
Pac.  579:  People  v.  Richmond,  16 
Colo.  274,  26  Pac.  929;  In  re  Kinder- 
garten Schools,  18  Colo.  234,  32  Pac. 
422,  19  L.  R.  A.  469;  State  v.  Bulk- 
eley,  61  Conn.  287,  23  Atl.  186, 14  L. 
R.  A.  657;  Wilson  v.  Sanitary  Trust- 
ees, 133  111.  443,  27  N.  E.  203;  People 
v.  Kirk,  162  111.  138,  45  N.  E.  830,  53 
Am.  St.  Rep.  277;  People  v.  Onahan, 
170  111.  449,  48  N.  E.  1003;  Ex  parte 
Roberts,  166  Mo.  207,  65  S.  W.  726; 
State  v.  French,  17  Mont.  54,  41 
Pac.  1078,  30  L.  R  A.  415;  Magneau 
v.  Fremont,  30  Neb.  843,  47  N.  W. 
280,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  436,  9  L.  R  A. 
786;  Koch  v.  New  York,  5  App. 
Div.  276,  39  N.  Y.  S.  164;  People  v. 
Young,  18  App.  Div.  162,  45  N.  Y.  S. 
772;  Probasco  v.  Raine,  50  Ohio  St. 
378,  34  N.  E.  536;  Southern  Gum 
Co.  v.  Laylin,  66  Ohio  St.  578,  64  N. 
E,   564;  Phillips  v.  Lewis,  3  Tenn. 


Cases,  230:  Stratton  Claimants  v. 
Morris  Claimants,  89  Tenn.  497,  15 
S.  W.  446;  Henley  v.  State,  98  Tenn. 
665,  41  S.  W.  352;  State  v.  Brown- 
son,  94  Tex.  436, 61  S.  W.  114;  State 
v.  Cherry,  22  Utah,  1,  60  Pac.  1103; 
Brown  v.  Epps,  91  Va.  726,  21  S.  E. 
119,  27  L.  R.  A.  676;  Prison  Ass'n  v. 
Ashby,  93  Va.  667,  25  S.  E.  893; 
Northwestern  National  Bank  v.  Su- 
perior, 103  Wis.  43,  79  N.  W.  54; 
State  v.  Henderson,  4  Wyo.  535,  35 
Pac.  517.  Compare  Britton  v.  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  129  CaL  337, 
61  Pac.  1115,  51  L.  R  A.  115. 

38  Taylor  v.  Place,  4  R  L  324. 

a9Shumway  v.  Bennett,  29  Mich. 
465;  Taylor  v.  Porter,  4  Hill,  140,  40 
Am.  Dec.  274;  Vanzant  v.  Waddel, 
2Yerg.  260;  State  Bank  v.  Cooper, 
id.  599;  Jones' Heirs  v.  Perry,  10  id. 
5C;  Greene  v.  Briggs,  1  Curtis,  311; 
State  v.  Dews,  R  M.  Charlt.  400; 
Sears  v.  Cottrell,  5  Mich.  254  See 
Smith  v.  Judge,  17  CaL  558;  State 


i. KM  RAL    N  \  il  BE    OF    ma  I  i   rORI     LAW. 


;  6  .  The  legislative  power.— It  results  from  this  di- 
of  the  fundamental  powers  that  the  legislature  is  cou- 
fined  to  the  ezeroise  of  the  law-making  power;  its  sole  func- 
tion is  the  enactment  of  laws.  None  of  these  great  powers 
are  defined  in  constitutions.  They  are  distributed  by  name, 
and,  therefore,  their  scope  and  limits  have  to  be  determined 
from  their  intrinsic  nature.  They  are  deemed  thus  suffi- 
ciently distinguishable.  A  state  legislature,  by  this  grant  of 
itive  power,  is  vested  with  all  power  which  is  of  that 
nature,  whether  it  had  been  exercised  wholly  by  the  parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain,  or  in  part,  by  prerogative,  by  the 
crown.40     As  legislative  power  is  merely  a  power  to  make 

v.  Dexter,   10  R.   I.  841;  Murray's  ince  of  the  legislature  to  enact,  of 
v.     Boboken,    etc   Co.,    18  the  judiciary  to  expound,  and  of 
15  L.  Ed.  !  the  executive  to  enforce.'" 
:!•:  11  v.Sherburne,  IN.  H.  In  Maynard  v.  Valentine,  1  W. 
■:    ;.  \V. ,  I  bury,  J.,  said:    "No  par-  Coast  Rep.  843,  Greene,  C.  J.,  speak- 
ticular  definition  of  judicial  power  ing  of  the  distinction  between  leg- 
is  given  in  the  constitution,  and  islative  and  judicial  functions,  said: 
5  the  general  nature  of  " It  could  not  be  destroyed  without 
the  instrument  none  was  to  be  ex-  destruction   of  one    or  the  other 
i.     Critical  statements  of  the  function.     For  it  consists  in  diver- 
meanings  in  which  all  important  sity  of  the  deep-seated  organic  re- 
re  to  have  been  employed  lutions  which  court  and  legislature 
would  have  swollen  into  volumes;  respectively    bear  to  the   central 
and  when  these  words  possessed  a  sovereignty     which     speaks    and 
customary  signification  a  definition  acts  through    them.      The    sover- 


of  them  would  have  been  useless." 
Lowrie,  C.  J.,  in  Reiser  v.  The 
William  Tell  Saving  Fund  Associa- 
tion.^ Pa.  St.  146,  said:  "We  must 


eign,  through  the  legislative  organ, 
speaks  spontaneously,  and  imposes 
on  that  organ  no  obligation  to  reply 
to  any  petition.     It  speaks  through 


insist   that  the  making  of  its  courts  upon  petition  only,  and 

nl  the  application  of  them  obliges  its  courts  to  answer  every 

they  arise  are  clearly  petition.    The  voice  of  the  court  is 

sen tially  different  functions,  explanatory,  and  assertative  of  that 

i  tt  one  of  them  is  allotted  by  of  the  legislature;  the  voice  of  the 

astitution  to  the  legislature  legislature  is  determinative  of  that 

and  the  other  to  the  courts.     9  Ca-  of  the  court.     Legislatures  declare 

■',.    Chief  Justice  Gibson  ex-  about  persons  and  things  in  gen- 

l  this  in  Greenough  v.  Green-  eral,  and,  in  particular,  what  the 

I  Jones.  494:  'Every  tyro  or  sovereign  will  ia     Courts  declare 

•  knows  that  it  is  the  prov-  what,  according  to  that  will,  the 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  15 

laws,  its  nature  raa}T  be  inferred  from  the  definition  of  statu- 
tory law;  for  a  statute  formulates  whatever  is  resolved,  or- 
dained or  enacted  by  the  forms  of  legislation  in  the  exercise 
of  that  power. 

§8  (7).  Statutory  law  in  general. —  A  statute  is,  in  a 
general  sense,  the  written  will  of  the  legislature  rendered 
authentic  by  certain  prescribed  forms  and  solemnities,41  pre- 
scribing rules  of  action  or  civil  conduct.42  This  is  compre- 
hensive as  applied  to  persons.  "  Statute  law  may,  we  think," 
says  Wilberforce,  "  be  properly  defined  as  the  will  of  the 
nation  expressed  by  the  legislature,  expounded  by  the 
courts  of  justice.  The  legislature,  as  the  representative  of 
the  nation,  expresses  the  national  will  by  means  of  statutes. 
These  statutes  are  expounded  by  the  courts  so  as  to  form 
the  body  of  the  statute  law."43  Mr.  Austin  says:  "A  law 
in  the  literal  and  proper  sense  of  the  word  may  be  defined 
as  a  rule  laid  down  for  the  guidance  of  an  intelligent  being 
by  an  intelligent  being  having  power  over  him."44  He  also 
says:  "Legislative  powers  are  powers  of  establishing  laws 
and  issuing  other  commands."45 

In  what  capacity  does  a  legislature  act  in  issuing  other 
commands?  In  other  words,  in  what  other  way,  or  to  what 
other  end,  may  "  legislative  powers  "  act  or  issue  commands 
than  to  establish  laws?  It  would  seem  to  be  a  truism  that 
the  product  of  law-making  is  law.  The  foregoing  defini- 
tions confine  law  to  persons.  If  it  is  so  confined,  then  the 
legislature  in  the  exercise  of  the  law-making  or  legislative 
power  may  not  legislate  in  regard  to  things.  Nor  should 
those  doctrines  and  principles  which  have  been  accepted  as 
part  of  the  common  law,  relating  to  things,  be  regarded  as 
law.  The  truth  is  that  law  is  a  rule,  not  necessarily  a  rule 
of  conduct,  though  a  rule  of  conduct  is  a  law  —  a  branch, 

parties  before  them  are  bound  or  42  1  Black.  Com.  44, 

free  to  do  or  suffer.     In  fine,  the  «  Wilb.  St.  L.  8. 

legislature  gives,  and  the  court  ap-  4i  Austin's  Jurisprudence,  voL  1, 

plies,  the  law."    2  Wash.  Ty.  3.  p.  3,  §  2. 

41  1  Kent's  Com.  447.  45  Id.,  §  230. 


L6  GKNKRAL    NATURE   OF   BTATUTOOT    LAW. 

the  whole  of  it.  As  a  rule  a  statute  may,  besides  pre- 
.  a  rule  of  civil  conduct  to  sentient  subjects,  create 
or  establish  legal  qualities  and  relations,  operating  as  a  Bat. 
Statutes  may  be  institutive,  creating  and  organizing  legal 
entities  and  endowing  them  with  qualities  and  powers  — 
for  example,  public  ami  private  corporations.  They  create 
offices,  courts,  and  other  governmental  agencies;  they  de. 
tine  crimes  and  torts;  property,  eorporcal  and  incorporeal; 
titles,  contracts;  prescribe  remedies  and  punishments;  they 
impart  a  legal  vitality  to  and  regulate  all  the  minutia  of 
civil  polity,  including  every  social  and  business  relation  or 
institution  deemed  conducive  to  the  well-being  and  happi- 
rned.46 

'.>    8  .   Asa  rule  for  persons,  it  is  not  a  transient,  sud- 
den  order  from  a  superior  to  or  concerning  a  particular  per- 

.  but  something  permanent,  uniform  and  universal.47  It 
is  a  rule,  because  not  merely  advisory,  but  imperative;  it 
emanates  from  the  supreme  power  as  a  command,  and  does 
not  depend  for  effect  on  the  approval  or  consent  of  its  sub- 
jects; it  is  a  rule  of  civil  conduct,  because  it  does  not  extend 
into  the  subjective  domain  of  morals  or  religion;  it  is  pre- 
scribed, and  therefore  operates  prospectively,  though  it  may 
under  certain  circumstances  and  limitations  operate  retro- 
spectively, as  will  be  seen  hereafter.48  It  is  permanent,  uni- 
form and  universal,  not  in  the  sense  of  being  irrepealable  or 
necessarily  operating  upon  all  the  persons  and  things  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  legislature,  but  because  a  law  in  gen- 
eral has  a  continuing  effect  and  operates  impartially  through- 
out the  state  or  some  district  of  it,  or  upon  the  whole  or  a 
class  of  the  public.49 

<«  License  Cases,  5  How.  504,  583,  would  be  difficult,  perhaps  impos- 

12  L  6;  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  sible,  to  define  the  extent  of  th» 

U.  S.  113,  125,  :.' 1  L.  Ed.  77.  legislative  power  of  the  state,  un 

«  1  Black.  Com.  41.  less  by  saying  that  so  far  as  it  is 

i   Bee  post,  ch.  XVII.  not  restricted  by  the  higher  law  of 

.:  v.  Maysville,  etc.  R.  R.  the  state  and  federal  constitutions. 

.  18    R    Mon.   22,   Marshall,   J.,  it  can  do  everything  which  can  be 

speaking  for  the  court,  said:  "It  effected  by  means  of  a  law.     It  is- 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW. 


17 


§  10  (9).  Eules  of  action. —  Courts  judicially  formulate 
rules  of  action,  but  only  by  applying  to  a  particular  party 
an  existing  law.  The  court  ascertains  by  trial  that  the 
party  is  within  a  rule  which  is  law,  and  the  facts  necessary 
to  its  special  operation  upon  him.  What  that  law  enjoins 
in  general  the  court  adjudicates  and  administers  in  the  par- 
ticular case.  Thus,  in  a  statute  before  me  is  this  provision : 
"  Every  person  guilty  of  fighting  any  duel,  although  no 
death  or  wound  ensues,  is  punishable  by  imprisonment  in 
the  penitentiary  not  exceeding  one  year."  This  is  a  statute  — 
a  law.  Mr.  A.  is  accused  of  the  offense  and  brought  before 
a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  by  proper  form  of  accu- 


the  great  supervising,  controlling, 
creative  and  active  power  in  the 
state,  subject  to  the  fundamental 
restrictions  just  referred  to.  What- 
ever legislative  power  the  whole 
commonwealth  has,  is  by  the  con- 
stitution vested  in  the  legislative 
department,  which,  representing 
the  popular  majorities  in  the  sev- 
eral local  divisions  of  the  state, 
and  under  no  other  restraint  but 
such  as  is  imposed  by  the  funda- 
mental law,  by  its  own  wisdom 
and  its  own  responsibilities,  may 
regulate  the  conduct  and  command 
the  resources  of  all,  for  the  safet}', 
convenience  and  happiness  of  all, 
to  be  promoted  in  such  manner  as 
its  own  discretion  may  determine. 
The  legislative  department  per- 
forms and  finishes  its  office  by  the 
mere  enactment  of  a  law." 

The  nature  and  scope  of  legisla- 
tive power  in  the  enactment  of 
laws  as  treated  in  an  article  on 
"The  Constitutionality  of  Local 
Option  Laws  "  in  12  Am.  L.  Reg. 
(N.  S.)  129,  are  too  narrow.  Con- 
trary to  the  assumptions  there 
made,  it  is  believed  that  all  valid 
2 


acts  of  the  legislature,  whether  na- 
tional or  state,  are  laws.  The  enu- 
merated powers  granted  to  con- 
gress are  legislative  in  their  nature; 
no  other  would  vest  in  a  state  leg- 
islature under  a  general  grant  of 
legislative  power.  Other  clauses 
in  the  constitutions,  requiring  or 
regulating  the  action  of  the  legis- 
lature in  reference  to  specific  sub- 
jects in  the  internal  system  or  pol- 
icy of  the  state,  are  not  intended 
to  confer  or  regulate  any  other 
than  the  power  of  making  laws  — 
saving  the  special  jurisdiction  in 
cases  of  impeachment,  and  such  as 
relate  to  the  autonomy  of  the  sep- 
arate branches  or  are  incidental  to 
the  exercise  of  its  legislative  func- 
tion. Hope  v.  Deaderick,  8  Humph. 
1, 47  Am.  Dec.  597;  Lusher  v.  Scites, 
4  W.  Va.  11;  Myers  v.  Manhattan 
Bank,  20  Ohio,  295;  Anderson  v. 
Dunn,  6  Wheat.  204-235,  5  L.  Ed. 
242;  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103 
U.  S.  168,  26  L.  Ed.  377;  Von  Hoist, 
Const.  L.,  §  28.  The  taxing  power 
is  legislative.  Marr  v.  Enloe,  1 
Yerg.  452;  Lipscomb  v.  Dean,  1 
Lea,  546. 


GENERAL    .naiiki:   OF   STATUTORY    LAW, 

•i  and  by  proper  arrest,  and  not  pleading  guilty  a  trial 

The  court  ascertains  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury 

that  A.  is  guilty  of  the  acts  denounced  in  the  statute.    The 

ace  based  on  that  verdict  is  that  "you,  Mr.  A.,  be  im- 

aed  in  the  penitentiary  one  year."  The  statute  was 
general  that  every  person  so  guilty  should  be  so  imprisoned. 
was  making  a  law  —  prescribing  a  rule  of  conduct. 
The  court  having  judicially  ascertained  that  A.  had  done 
these  acts  applied  the  law  to  him — repeats  the  statutory 
rule  of  action  en  A.  Enacting  the  rule  is  legislative;  trying 
A.  and  applying  the  rule  to  him,  repeating  and  formulating 
it  for  accomplishing  the  imprisonment  provided  for  in  the 
rule,  is  judicial. 

§  11  (10).  Legislative  rules  of  action  —  Essential  lim- 
it at  i(  n >. —  Even  rules  of  action  are  not  valid  laws,  if,  when 
enacted  by  the  legislature,  they  are  judicial  in  their  nature 
or  trench  on  the  jurisdiction  and  functions  of  the  judiciary. 
The  legislature  may  prescribe  rules  of  decision  which  will 
govern  future  cases;  these  rules  will  have  the  force  of  law; 
so   general  rules  of  practice,  regulating    remedies  and  so 

ting  as  not  to  take  away  or  impair  existing  rights, 
may  be  made  applicable  to  pending  as  well  as  subsequent 
actions.50  But  it  has  no  power  to  administer  judicial  relief, — 
it  cannot  decide  cases,  nor  direct  how  existing  cases  or  con- 

rsies  shall  be  decided  by  the  courts;  it  cannot  interfere 
by  subsequent  acts  with  iinal  judgments  of  the  courts.51    It 

5o  Rigga  v.  Martin,  5  Ark.  506,  41  Woods  v.  Buie,  5  How.  (Miss.)  285; 
Am.  Dec.   103;  Smith  v.  Judge,  17  United  States  Bank  v.  Longworth, 
<  al.  558;  United  States  v.  Samper-  1   McLean,  35,  Fed.  Cases,  No.  923; 
yac,  1   Hempst  11^;  Cutts  v.  Har-  Taggart  v.  McGinn,  14  Pa.  St.  155; 
<i;i.  350;  Rathbone  v.  Brad-  Van  Norman  v.  Judge,  45  Mich.  204, 
1  Ala.  312;  Coosa  R.  S.  B.  v.  7  N.  W.  796. 
v.  30  id.  120;  Hope  v.  John-  51  "A  legislative  act  is  said  to  be 
son.  2  Yerg.  123;  Lockett  v.  Usry,  one  which  predetermines  what  the 
28  G  a.  845;   Ralston  v.  Lothain,  18  law  shall  be  for  the  regulation  of 
In  I.  303;  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  future  cases  falling  under  its  pro- 
.  Oriental  Hank  v.  visions,  while  a  judicial  act  is  a  de- 
Freeze,  18  Me.  109.  86  Am.  Dec.  701;  termination  of  what  the  law  is  in 
..  Frankfort  Bank,  23  id.  318;  relation    to    some    existing  thing 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW. 


19 


cannot  set  aside,  annul  or  modify  such  judgments,52  nor 
grant  or  order  new  trials,53  nor  direct  what  judgment  shall 
be  entered  or  relief  given.54  No  declaratory  act,  that  is, 
one  professing  to  enact  what  the  law  now  is  or  was  at  any 
past  time,  can  affect  any  existing  rights  or  controversies.55 


done  or  happened.  .  .  .  When- 
ever an  act  determines  a  question 
of  right  or  obligation  or  of  property 
as  the  foundation  upon  which  it 
proceeds,  such  an  act  is  to  that  ex- 
tent judicial."  Wulzen  v.  Board 
of  Supervisors,  101  Cal.  15,  24,  35 
Pac.  353,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

52  Roche  v.  Waters,  72  Md.  264, 19 
Atl.  535,  7  L.  R.  A.  533;  Denny  v. 
Mattoon,  2  Allen,  361,  79  Am.  Dec. 
784:  Gil  man  v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y. 
190,  28  N.  E.  1040,  26  Am.  St.  Rep. 
464,  13  L.  R.  A.  304;  Roberts  v. 
State.  30  App.  Div.  100,  51  N.  Y.  S. 
691;  State  v.  New  York,  N.  H.  &  H. 
R.  R.  Co.,  71  Conn.  43,  40  Atl.  925. 

53  Atkinson  v.  Dunlap,  50  Me.  Ill; 
Griffin  v.  Cunningham,  20  Graft. 
31;  Reid,  Adm'r,  v.  Strider,  7  id.  76, 
65  Am.  Dec.  120;  Calhoun  v.  Mc- 
Lendon,  42  Ga.  405;  Reiser  v.  Wm. 
Tell,  etc.  Assoc.  39  Pa.  St.  147; 
Carleton  v.  Goodwin,  41  Ala.  153; 
O'Conner  v.  Warner,  4  Watts  &  S. 
227;  Arnold  v.  Kelley,  5  W.  Va.  446; 
De  Chastellux  v.  Fairchild,  15  Pa. 
St.  18,  53  Am.  Dec.  570;  Greenough 
v.  Greenough,  11  Pa.  St.  489,  51  Am. 
Dec.  567;  McCabe  v.  Emerson,  18 
Pa.  St.  Ill;  United  States  v.  Klein, 
13  Wall.  128,  20  L.  Ed.  519;  United 
States  v.  Samperyac,  1  Hempst.  118; 
Bagg's  Appeal,  43  Pa.  St.  512,  82 
Am.  Dec.  583;  Taylor  v.  Place,  4 
R  I.  324;  Erie,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Casey,  1  Grant's  Cas.  274;  Miller  v. 
Fiery,  8  Gill,  147;  Crane  v.  McGin- 


nis,  1  Gill  &  J.  463, 19  Am.  Dec.  237; 
Trask  v.  Green,  9  Mich.  366;  Bates 
v.  Kimball,  2  D.  Chip.  77;  Burch  v. 
Newbury,  10  N.  Y.  374;  Common- 
wealth v.  Johnson,  42  Pa.  St.  448: 
Inhabitants  of  Durham  v.  Inhab. 
of  L.,  4  Greenl.  140;  Ex  parte  Dar- 
ling, 16  Nev.  98,  40  Am.  Rep.  495: 
Davis  v.  "Village of  Menasha,  21  Wis. 
491;  Kendall  v.  Dodge.  3  Vt.  30 J: 
United  States  v.  Prospect  Hill  Cem- 
etery, 8  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  2;  State 
v.  Flint,  61  Minn.  539,  63  N.  W.  111;. 

64  Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis. 
288,  46  N.  W.  128,  20  Am.  St,  Rep. 
123,  8  L.  R.  A.  808;  Perkins  v. 
Scales,  2  Tenn.  Cases,  235.  The 
legislature  cannot  control  the  ac- 
tion of  the  court  in  settling  a  bill 
of  exceptions.  Adams  v.  State.  156 
Ind.  596,  59  N.  E.  24;  Johnson  v. 
Gebhauer,  159  Ind.  271,  64  N.  E.  855. 

85  Lindsay  v.  U.  S.  Savings  & 
Loan  Ass'n,  120  Ala.  156,  24  So.  171, 

42  L.  R,  A.  783;  Tilford  v.  Ramsey, 

43  Mo.  410;  People  v.  Supervisors, 
16  N.  Y.  425,  432;  Ogden  v.  Black- 
ledge,  2  Cranch,  272,  2  L.  Ed.  276; 
Gordon  v.  lnghram,  1  Grant's  Cas. 
152;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  John. 
477,  5  Am.  Dec.  291;  Mongeon  v. 
People.  55  N.  Y.  613;  McLeod  v. 
Burroughs,  9  Ga.  213;  Lambertson 
v.  Hagan,  2  Pa.  St.  25;  Peyton  v. 
Smith,  4  McCord,  476;  Hall  v. 
Goodwyn,  id.  442;  Grigsby  v.  Peak, 
57  Tex.  142;  Van  Norman  v.  Judge, 
45  Mich.  204.     It  was  held  (Alvord 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    BTATUTOET    LAW. 


g  12  [\D.  The  merits  of  every  legal  controversy  depend 
on  th  of  the  parties  as  determined  by  the  law  as  it 

was  when  the  rights  m  question  accrued,  or  the  wrong  com- 
plained  of  was  done.88  A  statutory  right,  however,  is  in- 
ohoate  until  reduced  to  possession  or  lixedand  perfected  by 
a  judgment.61  It  is  judicial  to  determine  what  the  law  was 
or  is;  ami  the  kind  and  measure  of  redress  due  to  parties, 
founded  upon  the  facts  of  a  case,  by  application  of  that  law. 
New  iaus  cannot  be  passed  to  atl'ect  existing  controversies, 
or  to  interfere  with  the  administration  of  justico  according 
to  tho  ;e  principles. 

To  pass  new  rules  for  the  regulation  of  new  controversies 
is  in  its  nature  a  legislative  act;  but  if  these  rules  interfere 
with  the  past  or  the  present,  and  do  not  look  wholly  to  the 
future,  they  violate  the  definition  of  a  law  as  a  rule  of  civil 
conduct;  because  no  rule  of  civil  conduct  can  with  consist- 


v.  Little,  16  Fla  158)  that  an  act 
extending  the  time  to  appeal, 
1  after  the  expiration  of  time 
iierefor  by  existing  law, 
did  not  affect  vested  rights,  be- 
•  it  applied  only  to  the  rem- 
edy. So  does  a  statute  of  limita- 
tions;  but  an  act  would  not  be 
lined  which  revived  a  right  of 
D  after  it  was  barred  by  the 
exi-ting  law.  Girdner  v.  Stephens, 
1  Heisk.  880,  2  Am.  Rep.  700;  Ad- 
amson  v.  Davis,  IT  Mo.  268;  Thomp- 
son v.  Read,  41  Iowa,  48;  Pitman 
v.  Bump,  5  Oreg.  17;  Wood  on 
Lim..  ?'  11.  The  legislature  is  not 
only  incapable  of  performing  judi- 
cial functions,  but  it  can  confer  no 
other  than  judicial  powers  on  the 
courts.  The  Auditor  v.  Atchison, 
eta  R  R.  Co.,  6  Kan.  500,  7  Am. 
]:.  575;  Bnrgoyne  v.  Supervisors,  5 
<  SaL  9;  Dickey  v.  Huriburt,  id.  B48; 
liayburn's  Case,  2  Dall.  409;  Rail- 
way Co.  v.  Board  Pub.  Works,  28 


W.  Va.  204.  See  United  States  v. 
Ferreira,  13  How.  40,  14  L.  Ed.  42. 

5B  Pacific,  etc.  Co.  v.  Joliffe,  2 
Wall.  450,  17  L.  Ed.  805;  Vanderkar 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  13  Barb.  390;  Peo- 
ple v.  Supervisors,  3  id.  332. 

57  Norris  v.  Crocker,  13  How.  429, 
14  L.  Ed.  210;  The  Irresistible,  7 
Wheat.  551,  5  L.  Ed.  520;  Calhoun 
v.  McLendon,  42  Ga.  407;  United 
States  v.  Mann,  1  Gallison,  177, 
Fed.  Cas.No.  15,718;  United  States 
v.  Passmore,  4  Dall.  372;  Town  of 
Guilford  v.  Supervisors,  13  N.  Y. 
143;  Kampton  v.  Commonwealth, 
19  Pa.  St.  329;  Stoever  v.  Immell,  1 
Watts,  258;  Williams  v.  Commis- 
sioners, 35  Ma  315;  Tivey  v.  Peo- 
ple, 8  Mich.  128;  Commonwealth  v. 
Duane,  1  Binn.  601,  2  Am.  Dec. 
497.  It  devolves  on  the  courts,  not 
the  legislature,  to  determine  the 
meaning  of  "  head  of  a  family,"  as 
used  in  the  constitutional  provis- 
ion for  a  homestead. 


GENERAL   NATURE   OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  21 

ency  operate  upon  what  occurred  before  the  rule  itself  was 
promulgated.58  Whether  in  their  inquiries  the  legislature 
and  the  courts  proceed  upon  the  same  or  different  evidence 
does  not  change  the  nature  of  legislative  acts.  Nor  can 
their  inquiries,  deliberations,  orders  and  decrees  be  both  ju- 
dicial and  legislative,  because  a  marked  difference  exists  be- 
tween the  functions  of  judicial  and  legislative  tribunals.  The 
former  decide  upon  the  legality  of  claims  and  conduct;  the 
latter  make  rules  upon  which  in  connection  with  the  constitu- 
tion these  decisions  should  be  founded.59  Legislative  power 
prescribes  rules  of  conduct  for  the  future  government  of  the 
citizen  or  subject;  while  judicial  power  punishes  or  redresses 
wrongs  growing  out  of  a  violation  of  rules  previously  estab- 
lished. The  distinction  lies,  in  short,  between  a  sentence  and 
a  rule.60 

§  13  (12).  Statutes  have  no  extraterritorial  effect  — 
Comity. —  Statutes  derive  their  force  from  the  authority  of 
the  legislature  which  enacts  them;  and  hence,  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence,  their  authority  as  statutes  will  be  limited 
to  the  territory  or  country  to  which  the  enacting  power  is 
limited.61  It  is  only  within  these  boundaries  that  the  legis- 
ts Merrill  v.  Sherburne,  1  N.  H.  Ins.  Co.,  181  Mass.  522,  63  N.  E.  950; 
204.  Mandell  Brothers  v.  Fogg.  182  Mass. 

59 Id.;  State  v.  Dews,  R.  M.  Charlt.  582;  Sanders  v.  St.  Louis  &  N.  O. 
400;  Bedford  v.  Shilling,  4  S.  &  R.  Anchor  Line,  97  Mo.  26;  Stanley  v. 
401,  8  Am.  Dec.  718;  Ogden  v.  "Wabash,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  100  Mo.  485, 13 
Blackledge,  2  Cranch,  273,  2  L.  Ed.  S.  W.  709,  8  L.  R.  A.  549;  Connell  v. 
276;  McLeod  v.  Burroughs,  9  Ga.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  108  Mo. 
213.  459,  18  S.  W.  883;  State  v.  Gritzner, 

eo  Ex  parte  Shrader,  33  Cal.  283;  134  Mo.  512,  36  S.  W.  39;  Rixhe  v. 
Cooley's  Con.  L.  110,  111.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 96  Mo.  App. 

«  Juilliard  v.  May,  130  111.  87,  22  406,  70S.  W.  265;  Everett  v.  Morri- 
N.  E.  477;  Warren  v.  First  National  son,  69  Hun,  146,  23  N.  Y.  S.  377; 
Bank,  149  111.  9,  38  N.  E  122,  25  L.  Greenville  Nat.  Bank  v.  Evans- 
R.  A.  746;  Boston  &  Me.  R.  R.  Co.  Snyder-Buell  Co.,  9  Okl.  353,  60Pac. 
v.  Trafton,  151  Mass.  229,  23  N.  E.  249;  Carson  v.  Railway  Co.,  88  Tenn. 
829:  Healey  v.  Reed,  153  Mass.  197,  646;  Becker  v.  La  Crosse,  99  Wis. 
26  N.  E  404;  Johnson  v.  Mut.  Life  414,  75  N.  W.  84,  67  Am.  St.  Rep. 
Ins.  Co.,  180  Mass.  407,  62  N.  E.  733;  874,  40  L  R.  A.  829;  Frame  v.  Thor- 
Attorney-General    v.   Netherlands    mann,  102  Wis.  653,  79  N.  W.  39; 


!AL    NAT!  BE    OF    MA  II  TORY    LAW. 


lature  is  law  maker,  that  its  Laws  govern  people,  that  they 
ite  of  their  own  vigor  upon  any  subject.68  No  other 
laws  have  effect  there  as  statutes.  Statutes  of  other  states, 
or  national  jurisdictions,  are  foreign  laws,  of  which  the 
courts  do  not  take  judicial  notice.  If  relied  upon  they  must 
be  pleaded  and  proved  as  other  facts.113  In  the  absence  of 
any  evidence  on  the  subject  the  laws  of  a  foreign  state  are 
presumed  to  be  the  same  as  in  the  state  of  the  forum.61  A 
court  will  not  presume  or  hold  a  foreign  law  to  be  invalid 
because  such  a  law  would  be  invalid  under  the  constitution 
of  its  own  state."5  The  construction  put  upon  a  statute  of 
a  foivign  state  by  its  highest  court  will  be  followed  by  the 


Hilton  v.  Guyot,  159  U.  S.  113,  16 
>.' '.):,.,,  [39,  WL.Ed.95;  McLough- 
lin  v.  Raphael  Tuck  Co.,  191  U.  S. 
The  :nt    of  congress  admit- 
ting Missouri  into  the  Union  estab- 
.  tin-  mil, lie  (if  tin-  main  chan- 
nel of  the  Mississippi  river  as  the 
ni  boundary  of  the  state,  but 
.t  concurrent  jurisdiction  over 
ntire  width  of  the  river.     It 
was  held  that  an  action  for  wrong- 
nil  death,  occurring  on  the  river 
of  the   main   channel,  could 
rought  in  Missouri  under  the 
■  iri    statutes,     Sanders    v.  St. 
&  N,  O.  Anchor  Line,  97  .Mo. 
. 

State  v.  Cutshall,  110  N.  C.  538, 

61,  10  L.  R.  A.  130. 

■y   v.  Howard,  91   Ala.  133, 

1  'ummings  v.  Montague, 

>T;  Bank  of  Commerce  v. 

ill  Mont.  285,  28  Pac.  291,  28 

\m  8t  Rep  161;  Man>ur-Tebbetts 

nipleo  ent  I  kx   v.    Willet,   10  Okl. 

••:    Bowe  v.  Ballard, 

•  N.  W.  13ft 

g  t   ..  Ryder,  119  Iowa, 

1-1.  I;  Smith  v.Mason,  44 


Neb.  G10,  G3  N.  W.  41;  Fisher  v. 
Donovan,  57  Neb.  361,  77  N.  W.  778, 
44  L.  R,  A.  383;  Greenville  National 
Bank  v.  Evans-Snyder-Buell  Co.,  9 
Okl.  353,  60  Pac.  249;  Osburne  v. 
Blackburne,  78  Wis.  209,  47  N.  W. 
175,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  400,  10  L.  P.  A. 
367;  Slaughter  v.  Bernard,  88  Wis. 
Ill,  59  N.  W.  576;  Hyde  v.  German 
Nat.  Bank,  115  Wis.  170.  It  has 
been  held  that  this  presumption 
does  not  apply  in  case  of  penal  stat- 
utes. Schoenberg  v.  Adler,  105 
Wis.  645,  81  N.  W.  1055. 

65  Fidelity  Ins.,  Trust  &  Safe  De- 
posit Co.  v.  Nelson,  30  Wash.  340. 
The  court  says:  "Here  there  is 
proof  of  a  law  of  a  sister  state,  and, 
if  we  were  to  indulge  in  presump- 
tions at  all,  we  would  presume 
that  it  was  passed  with  all  due  for- 
malities, is  within  the  constitu- 
tional [lowers  of  the  legislative 
body  which  passed  it,  and  is  a  valid 
and  existing  law,  rather  than  pre- 
sume that,  because  our  constitu- 
tion prohibits  such  law,  the  Penn- 
sylvania constitution  must  like- 
wise do  so." 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW. 


23 


courts  of  other  states.66  Statutes  of  other  states  may  be 
proved  and  taken  into  consideration  in  proper  cases,  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  domestic  statutes  and  of  the  constitu- 
tion; but  the}r  are  so  considered  only  by  the  principles  of 
the  common  and  international  law,  originating1  in  the 
comity  which  exists  between  nations  and  by  force  of  the 
federal  constitution  between  the  states  of  the  Union.67 

The  observance  or  recognition  of  foreign  laws  rests  in 
comity  and  convenience,  and  in  the  aim  of  the  law  to  adapt 


66  Fred.  Miller  Brewing  Co.  v. 
Capital  Ins.  Co.,  Ill  la.  590.  82  N.  W. 
1023,  82  Am.  St.  Rep.  529;  Supreme 
Council  v.  Green,  71  Md.  263, 17  Atl. 
1048,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  527;  Bronson 
v.  St.  Croix  Lumber  Co.,  44  Minn. 
848,  46  N.  W.  570;  Kimball  v.  Davis, 
52  Mo.  A  pp.  194;  Kulp  v.  Fleming, 
65  Ohio  St.  321,  62  N.  E.  334, 87  Am. 
St.  Rep.  611;  Howe  v.  Ballard,  113 
Wis.  375,  89  N.  W.  136.  The  con- 
struction put  by  the  courts  of  one 
state  upon  the  statute  of  another 
state  does  not  give  rise  to  a  federal 
question,  but  otherwise  if  its  valid- 
ity is  impugned.  Glenn  v.  Garth, 
147  U.  S.  360,  13  S.  C.  Rep.  350,  37 
L.  Ed.  203;  Lloyd  v.  Matthews,  155 
U.  S.  222,  15  S.  C.  Rep.  70,  39  L. 
Ed.  128;  Banholzer  v.  N.  Y  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  178  U.  S.  402,  20  S.  C.  Rep. 
972,  44  L.  Ed.  1124;  Johnson  v.  N.  Y. 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  187  U.  S.  491,  23  S.  C. 
Rep.  194. 

67Mandel  v.  Swan  Land  &  Cat- 
tle Co.,  154  III.  177,  40  N.  E.  462,  45 
Am.  St.  Rep.  124,  27  L.  R.  A.  313; 
Shaw  v.  Brown,  35  Miss.  216,  316; 
Minor  v.  Card  well,  37  Mo.  353; 
Clarke  v.  Pratt,  20  Ala.  470;  Har- 
rison v.  Harrison,  id.  629,  50  Am. 
Dec.  227;  Cockrell  v.  Gurley,  26  id. 
405;  Woodward  v.  Donally,  27  id. 
196;  Mobile  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Whit- 


ney, 39  id.  471 ;  Bank  of  Augusta 
v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  519,  10  L.  Ed.  274; 
Carey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
5  Iowa,  357;  Debevoise  v.  N.  Y.  etc. 
R.  R.  Co.,  98  N.  Y  377,  50  Am.  R. 
683;  Land  Grant  Railway  v.  Com- 
missioners, 6  Kan.  252;  Pickering 
v.  Fisk,  6  Vt.  107;  Andrews  v.  Her- 
riot,  4  Cow.  508,  and  note;  Saul  v. 
His  Creditors,  5  Mart.  (N.  S.)  569,  16 
Am.  Dec.  212;  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Cyclop. 
L  502;  Nichols  v.  Burlington,  etc. 
Ry  Co.,  78  Minn.  43,  80  N.  W.  776. 
Articles  798  and  799  of  the  penal 
code  of  Texas  provide  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  robbery,  theft,  and  the 
knowingly  receiving  of  stolen 
property,  though  perpetrated  in  a 
foreign  country  or  state,  if  the 
property  was  brought  into  the 
state,  provided  that  by  the  law  of 
the  foreign  country  or  state  the  in- 
culpatory act  would  have  been  the 
offense  charged  in  the  indictment. 
It  was  held  in  Cummins  v.  State, 
12  Tex.  App.  121,  that  in  such  a 
case  the  law  of  the  foreign  country 
or  state  is  an  element  of  the  offense 
and  an  issuable  fact  to  be  alleged 
in  the  indictment,  but  the  indict- 
ment need  not  aver  that  the  ac- 
cused was  punishable  or  amenable 
to  the  laws  of  the  foreign  country 
or  state. 


L'l  GENERAL    NATURE   OF   BTATUTOEI    LAW. 

its  remedies  to  the  great  ends  of  justice.68  P>ut  there  is  a 
limit  to  this  principle  of  comity  ;  and  cases  may  and  do  arise 
where  the  observance  of  foreign  laws  would  neither  be  con- 
venient nor  answer  the  purposes  of  justice.  Foreign  laws 
aiv  not  regarded  where  they  eonlliet  with  our  own  reerula- 
.  our  local  policy,  or  do  violence  to  our  views  of  religion 
or  publio  morals.6'1  The  principles  of  comity  do  not  require 
the  courts  of  one  state  to  enforce  rights  under  the  statutes 
of  another,  to  the  prejudice  of  its  own  citizens,  nor  when 
complete  justice  cannot  be  done.70  "'Comity,'  in  the  legal 
sense,"  says  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  "is 
neither  a  matter  of  absolute  obligation,  on  the  one  hand, 
nor  of  mere  courtesy  and  good  will,  upon  the  other.  But 
it  is  the  recognition  which  one  nation  allows  within  its  ter- 
ritory to  the  legislative,  executive  or  judicial  acts  of  an- 
other nation,  having  due  regard  both  to  international  duty 
and  convenience,  and  to  the  rights  of  its  own  citizens  or  of 
other  persons  who  are  under  the  protection  of  its  laws."  71 
Whatever  force  and  obligation  the  laws  of  one  country 
have  in  another  depends  upon  the  laws  and  municipal  regu- 
lations of  the  latter;  that  is  to  say,  upon  its  own  proper 
jurisprudence  and  polity,  and  upon  its  own  express  or  tacit 
consent.  A  municipality  of  one  state  by  accepting  a  stat- 
ute of  another  state  cannot  bind  itself  to  perform  the  con- 
ditions contained  in  such  statute.  The  city  of  La  Crosse 
was  authorized  by  the  legislature  of  Wisconsin  to  construct 
a  bridge  and  approaches  across  the  Mississippi  river  to  some 
point  in  Minnesota.  The  legislature  of  Minnesota  author- 
ized the  city  to  construct  and  maintain  a  wagon  road  from 
a  certain  highway  in  the  latter  state  to  the  boundary  line 

M  Pickering  v.   Fisk,  6  Vt.  107;  ™  Marshall  v.  Sherman,  148  N.  Y. 

Story,  Conf.  L.,  §  35.  9,  42  N.  E,  419,  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  654, 

6*  Id. ;  Dale  v.  Atchison,  etc.  R.  R.  34  L.  R  A.  757. 

3  Kan.  801,  47  Pac.  521;  Man-  "i  Hilton  v.  Guyot,  159  U.  S.  113, 

dell  Bros.  v.  Fogg,  182  Masa  582;  103,  16  a  C.  Rep.  139,  40  L.  Ed.  95. 
Hancock    National    Bank    v.    Far- 
num,  20R.L  466,  40  AtL  841. 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW  25 

between  the  two  states  on  condition  of  being  liable  for  in- 
juries to  travelers  by  reason  of  any  improper  construction 
•or  want  of  repair  in  the  road.  The  statute  was  accepted 
and  the  bridge  and  road  built.  In  a  suit  to  recover  for 
such  injuries,  it  was  held  that  the  city  was  powerless  to 
bind  itself  in  such  manner  and  that  it  was  not  liable.7- 
When  a  statute  or  the  unwritten  or  common  law  of  the 
country  forbids  the  recognition  of  the  foreign  law,  the  lat- 
ter is  of  no  force  whatever.  When  both  are  silent,  then 
the  question  arises,  which  of  the  conflicting  laws  is  to  have 
effect.  Generally,  force  and  effect  will  be  given  by  any 
state  to  foreign  laws  in  cases  where  from  the  transactions 
of  the  parties  they  are  applicable,  unless  they  affect  injuri- 
ously her  own  citizens,  violate  her  express  enactments,  or 
are  contra  bonos  mores.™ 

The  courts  of  one  state  will  not  enforce  the  penal,74  nor 
the  police,  revenue  or  political  laws  of  another.75  Whether 
a  statute  is  penal  in  the  sense  that  it  will  not  be  enforced 

72  Becker  v.  La  Crosse,  99  Wis.  414,  123;  Scoville  v.  Canfield,  14  John. 

75  N.  W.  84,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  874,  40  338;  Commonwealth  v.  Green,  17 

L.  R.  A.  829.    The  court  says:  "To  Mass.  515;  Folliott  v.  Ogden,  1  H. 

permit  the  city,   no  matter  how  Black.  135;  Ogden  v.  Folliott,  3  T. 

desirable  it  may  be,  to  expend  its  R.  733;  Wolff  v.  Oxholm,  6  M.  &  S. 

money,  and  to  obtain  rights  and  99;  King  of  Two  Sicilies  v.  Wilcox, 

privileges,  beyond  its  own  limits,  1  Sim.  (N.  S.)  301;  Holman  v.  John- 

and  beyond  the  limits  over  which  son,  1  Cowp.  343;  James  v.  Cather- 

its  creator  has  jurisdiction,  would  wood,  3  D.  &  R.  190  (16  Eng.  C.  L. 

be  unwise  and  dangerous,  to  say  165);  Randall  v.  Van  Rensselaer,  1 

the  least,  and  against  public  policy."  John.  95;  Stevens  v.  Brown,  20  W. 

Ti  Lawrence's  Wheaton  (2d  ed.),  Va.   450;  Woods  v.  Wicks,  7  Lea, 

162;  Bouv.  L.  Die,  tit.  Conflict  of  40.     See  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co. 

Laws;  Story,  Conf.  L,  £§  23,  29;  v.  Nix,  68  Ga.  572;  Whart.  Am.  L., 

Minor  v.  Cardwell,  37  Mo.  354,  90  §  253. 

Am.  Dec.  390;  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Cyclop.        ™  James  v.  Catherwood,  3  D.  & 

L.  502, 503;  Caldwell  v.Vanvlissen-  R.    190;    Planche    v.    Fletcher,    1 

gen,  9  Hare,  425;  Fenton  v.  Living-  Doug.  251;  Bristol  v.  Sequeville,  5 

stone,  3  Macq.  EL  K  Cas.  497;  Gard-  Exch.  275;  Quarrier  v.  Colston,  1 

ner  v.  Lewis,  7  Gill,  377;  Beard  v.  Phil.  147.     See  Henry  v.  Sar^eant, 

Basye,  7  B.  Mon.  144  13  N.  H.  321,  40  Am.  Dec.  148. 

™The  Antelope,  10   Wheat.   GO, 


!AL    NATI  It]     OF    BTATl  fOR"?    LAW. 


in  o  for  ign  state  is  often  a  difficult  question  and  is  ono 
upon  which  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion.  The  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States  says:  "The  question  whether  a 
statute  dI'  one  state,  which  in  some  respects  may  be  called 
penal,  is  penal  in  the  international  sense,  so  that  it  cannot 
be  enforoed  in  the  courts  of  another  state,  depends  upon  the 
question  whether  its  purpose  is  to  punish  an  offense  against 
the  pull',:.  of  the  state,  or  to  afford  a  private  remedy 

to  a  person  injured  by  the  wrongful  act."76  Crimes  are  in 
their  nature  local,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  them  is  local.77 
They  are  cognizable  and  punishable  exclusively  in  the 
country  where  they  are  committed.78 

1 1  (13).  As  every  nation  possesses  an  exclusive  sover- 

y  and    jurisdiction  within  its  own  territory,  its  laws 

affect   and   bind  directly  all  property,  whether  real  or  per- 


Huntington  v.  Attrill,  1-1G  U.  S. 
657,  678,  L3  S.  C.  Rep.  224,  36  I,  Ed. 

>e  arose  out  of  the 
following  fads:  A  statute  of  New 
York  provided  that,  if  any  certifi- 
er report  made  by  the  officers 
of  a  corporation  was  false  in  any 
mat  rial  re|  reservation,  all  who 
bad  signed  it  should  be  liable  for 
all  debts  of  the  corporation  con- 
tracted while  they  were  in  office. 
A  judgment  was  obtained  in  New 
York  upon  such  a  liability  and 
suit  brought  on  the  judgment  in 
Maryland.  The  supreme  court  of 
that  state  held  that  the  judgment 
was  lounded  on  a  penal  liability 
lit.  (70  Md.  191, 
16  Ail.  651.)  The  case  was  removed 
to  the  federal  supreme  court,  which 
I  he  decision  of  the  state 

curt  and  BU8tained  the  action.    In 

■    '  ate  the  court 

••  As   the   statute   imposes   a 

ne  liability  on  the  officers 

for  their  wrongful  act,  it  may  well 


be  considered  penal,  in  the  sense 
that  it  should  be  strictly  construed. 
But  as  it  gives  a  civil  remedy,  at 
the  private  suit  of  the  creditor 
only,  and  measured  by  the  amount 
of  his  debt,  it  is  as  to  him  clearly 
remedial.  To  maintain  such  a  suit 
is  not  to  administer  a  punishment 
imposed  upon  an  offender  against 
the  state,  but  simply  to  enforce  a 
private  right  secured  under  its 
laws  to  an  individual.  We  can  see 
no  just  ground,  on  principle,  for 
holding  such  statute  to  be  a  penal 
law,  in  the  sense  that  it  cannot  be 
enforced  in  a  foreign  state  or  coun- 
try." For  a  further  discussion  of 
the  question  see  Taylor  v.  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.,  95  Iowa,  740,  64  N. 
W.  000;  Kimball  v.  Davis,  52  Mo. 
App.  194;  Gardner  v.  New  York  & 
New  Eng.  R.  R.  Co.,  17  R.  I.  790,  24 
Atl.  8:3 1. 
"  Rafael  v.  Verelst,  2  W.  Black. 

t05a 

■   story,  Conf.  L.,  g  620. 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  27 

sonal,  within  that  territory;  and  all  persons  who  are  resi- 
dent within  it,  whether  natural-born  subjects  or  aliens,  and 
also  all  contracts  made  and  acts  done  within  it.  A  state 
may,  therefore,  regulate  the  manner  and  circumstances 
under  which  such  property,  in  possession  or  in  action,  within 
it  shall  be  held,  transmitted,  bequeathed,  transferred  or  sued 
for;  the  condition,  capacity,  and  state  of  all  persons  within 
it;  the  validit}'  of  contracts  and  other  acts  done  within  it; 
the  resulting  rights  and  duties  growing  out  of  these  con- 
tracts and  acts;  and  the  remedies  and  modes  of  administer- 
ing justice  in  all  cases  calling  for  the  interposition  of  its 
tribunals  to  protect  and  vindicate  and  secure  the  wholesome 
agency  of  its  own  laws  within  its  own  domains.79 

Transitory  rights  accruing  under  any  municipal  laws  may 
be  enforced  in  another  jurisdiction,  subject  to  the  principles 
just  stated,  that  they  be  not  repugnant  to  its  policy  or  preju- 
dicial to  its  interests;  and  personal  states  and  relations, 
originating  under  and  valid  by  the  law  of  the  domicile  or 
place  of  contract,  will  be  universally  recognized  as  valid, 
subject  to  the  same  condition.80  A  legal  title,  duly  acquired 
in  any  one  country,  is  a  good  title  over  all  the  world.81 

§  15  (14).  Where  either  by  common  law  or  statute  a  right 
of  action  has  become  fixed  and  a  legal  liability  incurred,  if 
transitory,  it  may  be  enforced  in  the  courts  of  any  state 
which  can  obtain  jurisdiction  of  the  defendant,  provided  it 
is  not  against  the  public  policy  of  the  laws  of  the  state 

"a  Story,  Conf.  L.,  §§  18,  29,  30;  80  Nashville,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fos- 
Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  60  ter,  10  Lea,  351;  State  Bank  Re- 
Miss.  977;  Debovoise  v.  N.  Y.  etc.  ceiver  v.  Plainfield  Bank,  34  N.  J. 
R.  R.  Co.,  98  N.Y.  377,  50  Am.  Rep.  Eq.  450;  W hart.  Am.  L.,  ch.  V; 
683;  Phillips  v.  Hunter,  2  H.  Black.  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet. 
402;  Sill  v.  Worswick,  1  H.  Black.  519,  5S9,  10  L.  Ed.  274;  Sherwood 
672;  Campbell  v.  Hall,  ICowp.  208;  v.  Judd,  3  Bradf.  419;  Sanford  v. 
Liverm.  Dis.  26-30;  Hyde  v.  Wa-  Thompson,  18  Ga.  554. 
bash,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa,  441,  47  81  Simpson  v.  Fogo,  1  H.  &  M.  195; 
Am.  Rep.  820;  Lawrence's  Wheat.  Crispin  v.  Doglioni,  3  S.  &  T.  96; 
160,  161;  Davis  v.  Jacquin,  5  Harr.  Beard's  Ex'r  v.  Basye,  7  B.  Mon. 
&  J.  100.  144. 


3 


i;i  M  ::.\i.    n  a  n  BE   01   BTAT1  rOB*    LAW. 


where  it  is  sought  to  be  enforced.  The  statute  has  no  ex- 
traterritorial force,  but  rights  under  it  will  always  in  comity 
be  enforced,  if  not  against  the  policy  of  the  laws  of  the 

forum.  In  BUoh  rases  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  right 
was  acquired  or  the  liability  was  incurred  will  govern  as  to 
the  right  of  action™  while  all  that  pertains  merely  to  tbo 
remedy  will  be  controlled  by  the  law  of  the  state  where  the 
action  is  brought.83 

§  1<>  (15).  Extraterritorial  operation  of  laws  in  ease  of 
colonization  of  a  new  country.— It  was  declared  by  the 
lords  of  the  privy  council  in  England,  over  a  hundred  and 
fifty  years  ago,  upon  appeal  from  the  foreign  plantations, 
that  if  there  be  a  new  uninhabited  country  found  out  by 
sh  subjects,  as  the  law  is  the  birthright  of  every  sub- 
ject, so  wherever  they  go  they  carry  the  laws  with  them; 
tlicrcfore,  such  new  found  country  is  governed  by  the  laws 
of  England.84    English  statutes  enacted  prior  to  the  settle- 


82  Herrick  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.  R 
R  Co..  31  Minn.  11,  47  Am.  R. 771; 
Knight  v.  West  Jersey  R.  R  Co., 

Pa  St.  250,  06  Am.  R  200;  Den- 
nick  v.  R  R  Co.,  103  U.  S.  11,  26  L. 
Ed.  439;  Leonard  v.  Columbia  St. 
Nav.    Co.,    81    N.   Y.    48,    38    Am. 
R  491;  Central  R  R  Co.  v.  Swint, 
?:;  Gr&  851;  Morris  v.  Chicago,  etc. 
R  R  Co..  'J.",  Iowa,  727,  •-'::  X.  W.  143, 
.".  1  Am.  R,  39;  Shedd  v.  Moran,  10  III. 
App.  618;  Ramsey  v.  Glenn, 33  Kan. 
Pac.265;  Boyce  v.  Wabash  Ry. 
[owa,  7  I.19N.  W.  210, 50  Am. 
I;  Keenan  v.  Stimson,  32  Minn. 
W.  364;  Bishop  v.  Globe 
Co.,  135  Mass.  132;  Taylor  v.  Penn. 
-  Ky.348,39  Am.  K.  241.    See 
Willis  v.  1:.    B.  Co.,  61   Tex.  432; 
V;i\vter  v.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  84  Mo.  879, 
64  Am.  R.  105. 

83  Id. ;  Burlington,  etc  R  R  Co.  v. 
Thompson,  31  Kan.  180,  47  Am.  R. 
497;  Mooney  v.  Union  Pacific  J,'.  J;. 


Co.,  60  Iowa,  346,  14  N.  W.  343.  "A 
contract,  so  far  as  concerns  its 
formal  making,  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  law  of  the  place  where  it  is 
solemnized,  unless  the  lex  sitns  of 
property  disposed  of  otherwise  re- 
quires; so  far  as  concerns  its  in- 
terpretation, by  the  law  of  the 
place  where  its  terms  are  settled, 
unless  the  parties  had  the  usages 
of  another  place  in  view;  so  far  as 
concerns  the  remedy,  by  the  law  of 
the  place  of  suit;  and  so  far  as 
concerns  its  performance,  by  the 
law  of  the  place  of  performance." 
Wharfc.  Conf.  L,  (2d  ed.),  § 401. 

8* Mem.  2  P.  Wins.  75;  1  Black. 
Com.  107;  Blankard  v.  Caldy,  2 
Salk.  411;  Button  v.  Ilowell,  Show. 
P.  C.  32;  Adj.-Gen.  v.  Ranee  Sur- 
nomoye  Dossee,  9  Moore  (Ind. 
App.),  387;  Commonwealth  v. 
Leach,  1  Mass.  60;  Commonwealth 
v.  Knowlton,  2  id.  534;  Boehm  v. 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  29' 

merit  of  the  colonies  in  America  were  brought  thither  with 
the  common  law;  or  rather  the  common  law,  and  the 
statutes  amendatory  of  it,  by  the  colonists  from  England, 
as  a  birthright;  not  to  operate  of  their  own  vigor  in  the 
colonies,  as  statutes,  but  as  part  of  the  unwritten  law.  The 
colonists  brought  the  laws  of  the  mother  country  as  they 
brought  the  mother  tongue;  not  all  the  laws,  but  such  as 
were  adapted  to  their  needs  in  the  new  country  under  the 
novel  conditions  and  circumstances  which  there  existed.83 

§  17  (16).  The  existence  of  this  law  in  the  colonies  was 
recognized  and  sanctioned  by  the  royal  charters,  subject  to 
modification  by  colonial  usage  and  legislation.  Our  colo- 
nial ancestors  could  live  under  the  old  laws,  or  make  new 
ones.  When  they  legislated,  their  own  laws  governed 
them;  when  they  did  not,  the  laws  they  brought  with 
them  were  their  rules  of  conduct.86  The  English  statutes 
thus  imported,  though  the  written  law  in  England,  and 
there  in  force  as  the  expression  of  the  sovereign  will,  did 
not  clin°:  to  the  emigrant  and  attend  him  to  the  colonies 
against  his  will  to  preserve  his  subjection  to  the  crown; 
but  he  brought  it  as  a  boon  for  his  protection.87     In  the 

Engle,  1  Dall.  15;  Bogardus  v.  Trin-  ton's  Am.  L.,  §  22,  note)  truly  states 

ity  Church,  4  Paige,  198.   See  dial-  the  force  of  English  laws  brought 

mers' Colonial  Op.  206,  232.  to  this   country  by  the  colonists. 

85  State  v.  Rollins,  8  N.  H.  550,  He  said:  "The  settlers  of  colonies 
561;  Commonwealth  v.  Knowlton,  in  America  did  not  carry  with 
2  Mass.  534;  Patterson  v.  Winn,  5  them  the  laws  of  the  land  as  being 
Pet.  233,  8  L.  Ed.  108;  Clawson  v.  bound  by  them  wherever  they 
Primrose,  4  Del.  Ch.  643;  O'Ferrall  should  settle.  They  left  the  realm  to 
v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  400;  Vidal  v.  avoid  the  inconveniencies  and  hard- 
Girard's  Heirs,  2  How.  128, 11  L.  Ed.  ships  they  were  under  where  some 
205;  Webster  v.  Morris,  66  Wis.  366,  of  these  laws  were  in  force,  partic- 
28  N.  W.353,  57  Am.  R  278;  Dodge  ularly  ecclesiastical  laws,  those  for 
v.  Williams,  46  Wis.  92;  Nelson  v.  the  payment  of  tithes,  and  others. 
McCrary,  60  Ala.  301.  Had  it  been  understood  that  they 

86  Sackett  v.  Sackett,  8  Pick.  309;  were  to  carry  those  laws  with  them, 
1  Kent's  Com.  473;  Commonwealth  they  had  better  have  stayed  at 
v.  Knowlton,  supra.  home   among  their  friends   unex- 

87  The  declaration  of  Dr.  Frank-  posed  to  the  risks  and  toils  of  anew 
lin  quoted  by  Mr.  Wharton  (Whar-  settlement.      They    carried    with 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF   STATUTORY     LAW. 


these  Btatutes  wore  interwoven  with  tho  common 
law.  Their  authority  was  the  same  as  that  which  gave 
and  sanction  to  the  common  law;  the  foroe  of  each 
depended  on  the" same  consideration  —  the  presence  of  this 
in  the  emigrant's  mind  and  their  adaptation  to  his 
condition  and  oircumstances  in  the  colonies.  In  1771  the 
congress  declared  the  right  of  the  colonies  to  the  common 
law  and  stat ut  s  of  the  mother  country.88 

§  is  d7).  English  statutes  passed  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  colonies. —  The  colonies  were  subject  to  the 
authority   of   parliament;  they  were  a   part  of  the  British 
domain/'1     It  could,  and  to  some  extent  it  did,  legislate  di- 
for  their  government.     But  its  enactments  did  not 

them  a  right  to  Buch  part  of  tho  perial  statute,  is  clothed  with  su- 

laws  of  th-                  they  should  preme  authority,  within  the  limits 

-   or   useful  to  of  the   colon}',  to  provide  for  the 

:,t  to  in'  free  from  those  peace,  order  and  good  government 

j  lit  hurtful,  and  a  of   the   inhabitants   thereof.     (Si'e 

right  to  make  such  others  as  they  Baron  Burke's  judgment  in  Kielley 

should  thin                        itinfring-  v.  Carson,  4  Moore's  Privy  Council 

neral  rights  of  English-  Rep.  So.)    This  supreme  legislative 

and  such  new  laws  as  they  authority  is  subject,  of  course,  to 

were  to  form  as  agreeable  as  might  the  paramount  supremacy  of  the 

be  to  the  laws  of  England."    See  imperial  parliament  over  all  minor 


speech  of  Burke  on  moving  resolu- 
tions  of  conciliation,  March  22,  177"). 
88  Journal  of  Cong.  Oct.  14,  1774 
In  a  late  work,  entitled  "Parlia- 
mentary Government  in  the  Brit- 


and  subordinate  legislatures  within 
the  empire.  The  functions  of  con- 
trol exercisable  by  the  imperial  leg- 
islature are  practically  restrained, 
however,  by  the  operation  of  cer- 


ish  Colonies,"  by  Alpheus  Todd,  tain  constitutional  principles.  .  .. 
p.  128,  it  is  said:  "Subject,  however,  It  may  suffice  to  observe  that  the 
to  the  constitutional  oversight  and  right  of  local  self-government  con- 
ion  of  the  crown,  by  which  ceded  toall  British  colonies  wherein 

i.onial  legislation  is  liable  to  representative    institutions    have 

be  controlled  or  annulled,  if  exer-  been  introduced  confers  upon  the 

unlawfully  or  to   the  preju-  local  legislature,  with  co-operation 

ij  other  parts  of  the  empire,  and  consent  of  the  crown,  as  an  in- 
complete powers  of  legislation  a|>-  tegral  part  of  such,  institution,  am- 

:i  to  all  duly  constituted  co-  pie  and  unreserved  powers  to  de- 

lonial   government     Every   local  liberate  and  determine  absolutely 

iture,    whether    created    by  in  regard  to  all  matters  of  local  eon- 

rter  from  the  crown  or  by  ini-  cern." 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  31 

extend  to  the  colonies  unless  the  intention  to  so  extend 
them  was  manifested  in  the  statutes.90  Nor  did  such  stat- 
utes, in  which  no  such  intention  was  expressed,  become  part 
of  the  unwritten  law  of  the  colonies.91 

In  some  instances,  statutes  of  England  passed  after  the 
emigration,  and  not  in  terms  made  applicable  to  the  col- 
onies, were  adopted  by  the  colonial  courts;  thus  by  long 
practice  they  acquired  the  authority  of  law.92  By  statutory 
arm*  constitutional  provision,  the  common  law  and  English 
statutes,  prior  to  specified  dates,  have  been  very  generally 
adopted,  or  assumed  by  the  courts  to  be  in  force  so  far  as 
consistent  with  our  condition  and  system  of  government, 
not  only  bj7"  states  formed  from  the  colonies,  but  in  the 
newer  states.93  The  legislative  and  juridical  history  of  the 
colonies  does  not  confirm  the  theory  that  English  laws  were 
imposed  on  the  colonies  by  authority  of  parliament,  or  that 
their  adoption  is  traceable  alone  and  everywhere  to  the 
nationality  of  the  colonists.  They  unconsciously,  by  usage 
and  custom,  adopted  laws  adapted  to  their  situation  and 
needs,  according  to  such  enlightenment  as  they  had,  under 
the  conjoint  influence  of  dissenting  religion  and  national 
bias.  They  legislated  to  the  same  end,  and  under  the  s;iine 
influence;  independently  of  the  crown,  despite  the  restric- 
tions in  their  constitutions,  and  the  practice  or  requirement 
in  some  cases  to  legislate  in  the  name  of  the  king  and  the 
ostensible  recognition  of  his  veto  power.94 

90McKineron   v.  Bliss,  31  Barb.  Commonwealth    v.    Ktiowlton.    2 

180.    See  Brice  v.  State,  2  Overt.  Mass.  534;  Conrad  v.  De  Montcourt, 

254;  Egnew  v.  Cochrane,  2  Head,  138  Mo.  311,  39  S.   W.   805;    Reno 

329.  Smelting,    Milling    &     Reduction 

;)1  Matthews  v.  Ansley,  31  Ala.  20;  Works  v.  Stevenson,  20  Nev.  269. 

Carter    v.    Balfour,    19    Ala.    829;  21  Pac.  317,  19  Am.  St.  Rep.  304: 

SacUett  v.    Sackett,  8  Pick.    309;  McKennon  v.  Winn,  1  Oki.  327,  -.3 

Commonwealth     v.    Knowlton,    2  Pac.  582,  22  L.  R.  A.  501;  Carson  v. 

Mass.  534.  Center,  33  Ore.  512,  52  Pac.   506; 

92  Commonwealth  v.  Knowlton,  2  Morris  v.  Vanderen,  1  Dall.  04,  Oi : 
Mass.  534.  Respublica  v.  Mesca,  id.  73. 

93  Wunderle  v.  Wunderle,  144111.  94  Edmund  BurUe,  in  his  speech 
40,  33  N.   E.   195,  19  L.  R  A.  84;  in  moving  resolutions  of  concilia- 


(.1  M  R  \l.     N  A  I  I   Ki:    OF    MA  It    l.iKV     LAW. 


The  original  British  colonics  bad  been  practically  self- 
governing,  and  the  result  of  the  revolution  was  to  confirm 
their  right  of  self-government  The  people  of  the  several 
colonies,  in  provisional  union,  won  in  that  struggle  the  sov- 
ereignty of  themselves.  The  republican  system  which  re- 
id  the  colonial  constitutions  abrogated  only  the  prior 
laws  which  were  inconsistent  with  the  genius  and  form  of 
the  new  go\ ernment. 

§  19  (18).  The  first  settlements  were  not  all  made  by 
English  people,  nor  were  all  the  English  settlements  made 
by  j  ersons  of  the  same  class  or  from  the  same  motives.  Yon 
Hoist  has  truly  remarked,  that  "  the  thirteen  colonies  had 


fcion  March  22,  1775,  raid:  "When  I 
know  that  the  colonies  in  general 
owe  little  or  nothing  to  any  care 
of  ours,  and  that  they  are  not 
squeezed  into  this  happy  form  by 
the  constraints  of  watchful  and 
•ious  government,  but  that, 
through  a  wise  and  salutary  neg- 
lect, a  generous  nature  has  been 
suffered  to  take  her  own  way  to 
perfection  —  when  I  reflect  upon 
these  effects,  when  I  see  how  prof- 
itable they  have  been  to  us,  I  feel 
the  pride  of  power  sink,  and  all 
presumption  in  the  wisdom  of 
human  contrivances  melt  and  die 
away  within  me, —  my  vigor  re- 
lents,—  I  pardon  something  to  the 
spirit  of  liberty."  Having  ad- 
dressed a  series  of  considerations 
to  show  the  futility  and  inexped- 
ience  of  employing  force  against 
the  revolting  colonies,  he  said: 
•■  Lastly,  we  have  no  sort  of  expe- 
rt' tux  in  favor  of  force  as  an  instru- 
ment in  the  rule  of  our  colonies. 
Their  growth  and  their  utility  has 
been  owing  to  methods  altogether 
rent.  Our  ancient  indulgence 
has  Leen  said  to  be  pursued  to  a 


fault.  It  may  be  so:  but  we  know, 
if  feeling  is  evidence,  that  our  fault 
was  more  tolerable  than  our  at- 
tempt to  mend  it,  and  our  sin  more 
salutary  than  our  penitence.  .  .  . 
But  there  is  still  behind  a  third 
consideration,  concerning  this  ob- 
ject, which  serves  to  determine  my 
opinion  on  the  sort  of  policy  which 
ought  to  be  pursued  in  the  man- 
agement of  America,  even  more 
than  the  population  and  its  com- 
merce; I  mean  its  temper  and  char- 
acter. In  tliis  character  of  Amer- 
icans, a  love  of  freedom  is  the  pre- 
dominating feature  which  marks 
and  distinguishes  the  whole;  and 
as  an  ardent  is  always  a  jealous  af- 
fection, your  colonies  become  sus- 
picious, restive,  and  untractable, 
whenever  they  see  the  least  attempt 
to  wrest  from  them  by  force,  or 
shuffle  from  them  by  chicane,  what 
they  think  the  only  advantaj  e 
worth  living  for.  This  fierce  spirit 
of  liberty  is  stronger  in  the  Eng- 
lish colonies,  probably,  than  in  any 
other  people  of  the  earth,  and  this 
from  a  great  variety  of  powerful 
causes." 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW.  33 

been  founded  at  very  different  times  and  under  very  differ- 
ent circumstances.  Their  whole  course  of  development, 
their  political  institutions,  their  religious  views  and  social 
relations,  were  so  divergent,  the  one  from  the  other,  that  it 
was  easy  to  find  more  points  of  difference  than  of  similar- 
ity and  comparison.  Besides,  commercial  intercourse  be- 
tween the  distant  colonies,  in  consequence  of  the  great 
extent  of  their  territory,  the  scantiness  of  the  population, 
and  the  poor  means  of  transportation  at  the  time,  was  so 
slight,  that  the  similarity  of  thought  and  feeling,  which  can 
be  the  result  only  of  a  constant  and  thriving  trade,  was 
wanting."95  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  same 
English  statutes  were  not  equally  applicable  to  the  local 
condition  in  all  the  colonies. 

In  Dana's  Abridgment96  it  is  said,  "there  is  no  question 
more  difficult  to  be  answered  than  this:  '  What  British  stat- 
utes were  adopted  in  the  British  colonies  ? '  In  the  char- 
tered colonies  but  few  were  adopted  and  practiced  upon;  in 
the  proprietary  colonies,  not  many;  in  the  royal  colonies, 
usually  a  great  many." 

§20(19).  Continuance  of  laws  after  a  change  of  sov- 
ereignty.—  Laws,  customary  and  statutory,  continue  in 
force,  though  they  originate  under  a  sovereign  whose  power 
has  ceased  by  cession  of  the  country  and  all  political  juris- 
diction, or  by  conquest.  "  The  usage  of  the  world  is,"  says 
Chief  Justice  Marshall,  "if  a  nation  be  not  entirely  subdued, 
to  consider  the  holding  of  conquered  territory  as  a  mere 
military  occupation,  until  its  fate  shall  be  determined  at  the 
treaty  of  peace.  If  it  be  ceded  by  the  treaty  the  acquisi- 
tion is  confirmed,  and  the  ceded  territory  becomes  a  part 
of  the  nation  to  which  it  is  annexed;  either  on  the  terms 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  of  cession,  or  on  such  as  its  new 
master  shall  impose.  On  such  transfer  of  territory,  it  has 
never  been  held  that  the  relations  of  the  inhabitants  with 
each  other  undergo  any  change.     Their  relations  with  their 

w  Von  Hoist,  Const.  Hist.  U.  S.,  vol.  I,  p.  2.     »«  Vol.  G,  ch.  196,  art.  7. 
3 


r.i 


0]  M  RAL    NAi  I  BE    01     BTATl  l"i:v    l  \\v. 


former  sovereign  are  dissolved,  and  new  relations  are  cre- 
ate.I  between  them  and  the  government  which  has  acquired 
their  territory.    The  same  act  which  transfers  their  country 

transfers  the  allegiance  of  those  who  remain  in  it;  and  the 
law,  which  may  be  denominated  political,  is  necessarily 
changed,  although,  that  which  regulates  the  intercourse  and 
genera]  conductof  individuals  remains  in  force  until  altered 
by  the  newly  created  power  of  the  state. ,,!l7  Among  civil- 
ized nations  having  established  laws,  the  rule  is  that  laws, 

s  and  municipal  regulations,  in  force  at  the  time  of 
the  conquest,  remain  in  force  until  changed  by  the  new  sov- 

a.98  For  a  still  stronger  reason,  this  would  be  true  in 
case  of  acquisitions  by  purchase  and  cession." 


y~  The  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Can- 
ter, 1  Pet  oil,  7  L.  Ed.  342;  United 
.man.  7  id.  51,  8  L. 
14;  Mitohel  v.  United  States,  9 
Pet.  711,9  L.  Ed.  283;  Mitchell  v. 
Turker.  10  Mo.  202;  Leitensdorfer 
v.  Webb,  20  How.  17(5,  15  L.  Ed.  891* 
i  v.   Hanes.  21  Wall.  521, 
22  L,  Ed.  606;  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R 
e.  McGlinn,  114  U.  S.  542,  5  S. 
C.  Rep.  1005,  29  L,  Ed.  270;  Whart 
Am.  L.,  §  151. 

98  United  States  v.  Powers'  Heirs, 
11  How.  577.  13  L.  Ed.  817;  Chew  v. 
Calvert,  1  Mi<s.  (Walk.)  54;  Fowler 
v.  Smith,  2  Cal.  39,  508;  Blankard 
v.  Galdy,  2  Salk.  411;  Macoleta  v. 
Packard,  14  Cal.  179;  Campbell  v. 
Hall,  1  Cowp.  209. 

1    .svler  v.  Smith,  2  Cal.  39,  568, 

was  a  case  which  arose  before  there 

uny  legislation  of  the  state  of 

wrnia  changing  the  original 

an   law  of  interest.     It  was 

an  action  to  foreclose  a  mortgage 

for  purchase-money.  There  was  an 


express  promise  to  pay  interest  at 
two  per  cent,  per  month.  It  was 
stated  that  by  the  law  of  Mexico 
all  contracts  to  pay  a  higher  rate 
than  six  percent,  per  annum,  either 
upon  money  loaned  or  otherwise, 
were  void.  Murray,  J.,  speaking 
for  the  court,  said:  "I  cannot  ap- 
proach the  point  [error  having  been 
alleged  to  the  ruling  of  the  trial 
court  that  the  contract  was  not 
usurious]  without  great  hesitation, 
well  knowing  that  I  shall  have  to 
contend  with  what,  by  many,  is 
considered  the  settled  rule  upon 
this  subject.  But  the  frequency  of 
these  pleas,  and  the  growing  dis- 
position of  counsel  to  apply  the 
principles  of  the  civil  or  Mexican 
law  to  every  contract  entered  into 
before  the  passage  of  the  act  abol- 
ishing all  laws  previously  existing 
in  California,  require  that  some  ad- 
judication should  be  had  which 
may  govern  these  cases  for  the 
future.     The  argument  of  the  ap- 


99  United  States  v.  Powers'  Heirs,  11  How.  577,  13  L.  Ed.  817;  McNair 
v.  Hunt,  5  Mo.  300,  308. 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF    STATUTORY   LAW. 


35 


§  21  (20).  Laws  of  states  in  rebellion. —  The  laws  of  the 
insurgent  states  passed  during  the  rebellion,  not  enacted  in 


pel  I  ant  is  based  upon  the  well- 
recognized  principle  of  interna- 
tional law  that  the  laws  of  a  ceded 
country  remain  in  force  until 
changed  by  the  conquering  or  ac- 
quiring power.  This  principle  is 
to  be  found  in  almost  every  work 
upon  the  subject  of  national  law, 
and  is  reiterated  and  affirmed  by 
the  courts  of  England  and  the 
United  States.  Its  application  to 
this  case  can,  however,  only  be  de- 
termined by  an  examination  of  the 
rule  and  the  particular  circum- 
stances under  which  it  is  sought 
to  be  applied. 

"The  law  of  nations  is  said  to  be 
founded  on  right,  reason,  sound 
morality  and  justice;  but  although 
it  is  said  to  be  binding  upon  na- 
tions in  their  intercourse  and  trans- 
actions, still  we  find  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  and  Europe  in 
many  instances  differing  in  their 
application  of  the  rules,  and  even 
disregarding  them.  As  the  world 
has  advanced  in  civilization  and 
learning,  the  influence  of  religion 
has  been  felt  and  recognized  by 
the  christian  countries  of  Europe 
in  their  intercourse  with  each 
other.  War  has  been  stripped  of 
many  of  its  most  disgusting  feat- 
ures. It  is  no  longer  considered  as 
the  normal  condition  of  man  and 
nations;  but  only  justifiable  when 
resorted  to  to  preserve  national 
honor,    prosperity  and   happiness. 

"In  an  acquired  territory  con- 
taining a  population  governed  in 
their  business  and  social  relations 


by  a  system  of  laws  of  their  own, 
well  understood  and  generally  ac- 
cepted, it  is  but  reasonable  that 
the  inhabitants  should  continue  to 
regulate  their  conduct  and  com- 
mercial transactions  by  their  own 
laws,  until  the  same  are  changed. 
The  reason  is  obvious  and  founded, 
in  many  instances,  on  the  differ- 
ence of  language  and  systems  of 
jurisprudence,  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  the  country,  the 
confusion  consequent  on  such 
change,  and  the  time  necessary  to 
ascertain  the  applicability  of  the 
new  laws.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  rule  presupposes  that  the  ac- 
quired country  contains  a  popula- 
tion governed  by  well  settled  laws 
of  their  own.  Let  us  inquire 
whether  these  reasons  apply  with 
equal  force  to  this  case. 

"  California,  at  the  time  of  itsac- 
quisition  by  the  United  States,  con- 
tained but  a  sparse  population.  It 
had  long  been  looked  upon  as  one 
of  the  outposts  of  civilization.  Its 
commercial,  agricultural  and  min- 
eral resources  undeveloped,  it  was 
considered  of  little  importance  by 
the  Mexican  government.  The 
body  of  Mexican  laws  had  been  ex- 
tended over  it;  but  there  was  noth- 
ing upon  which  they  could  act,  and 
they  soon  fell  into  disuse.  The  sys- 
tem of  government  was  patriar- 
chal, and  administered  without 
much  regard  to  the  forms  of  law, 
which  were  scarcely  alike  in  any 
two  districts.  Such  was  the  state 
of  the  country  when  the  discovery 
of  our  mineral  wealth  roused  the 


;.'. 


,,1MK\1.     N  ATI   UK    OF    S  I  ATI  Ti  >U  V     LAW. 


aid  of  the  rebellion  but  relating  to  the  domestio  affairs  of 
the  people  ol  the  state  as  a  community,  were  valid  after 
the  war  ami  the  restoration  of  the  states  to  all  their  rights 


Whole  oivilizefl  world  to  its  impor- 
tance. In  :*  tew  months  the 
emigration  from  older  stains  ex- 
i  five  t i 1 1 1 -  s  the  original  pop- 
ulation of  thf  country.  A  state  gov- 
ernment was  immediately  formed 
to  meet  the  wants  of  this  unex- 
I  population.  The  whole 
1  was  amazed  by  our  sudden 
progress;  and  even  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, startled  from  her  usual 
caution  by  so  novel  a  spectacle  be- 
held us  take  our  place  as  a  sover- 
eign state,  before  her  astonishment 
had  subsided.  Emigration  brought 
with  it  business,  litigation,  and  the 
thousand  attendants  that  follow  in 
the  train  of  enterprise  and  civili- 
zation. The  laws  of  Mexico,  writ- 
ten in  a  different  language,  and 
founded  on  a  different  system  of 
jurisprudence,  were  to  them  a 
sealed  book.  The  necessities  of 
trade  and  commerce  required 
prompt  action.  This  flood  of  pop- 
ulation bad  destroyed  every  an- 
cient landmark;  and  finding  no 
established  laws  or  institutions, 
they  were  compelled  to  adopt  cus- 
t  ins  for  their  own  government. 
The  proceedings  in  courts  were 
conducted  in  the  English  language; 
and  justice  was  administered  by 
American  judges  without  regard 
to  Mexican  laws.  Custom  was  for 
all  purposes  law.  No  law  concern- 
ing usury  was  recognized  or  sup- 
I  to  exist.  Under  this  peculiar 
6ystem  this  country  acquired  its 
present  wealth  and  prosperity. 
But  it  would  have  been  much  bet- 


ter for  the  permanent  interests  of 
this  country,  that  its  progress  had 
been  less  rapid,  if,  after  escaping 
from  the  tutelage  of  a  territorial 
government,  we  are  to  be  fettered 
by  the  dead  carcass  of  a  law  which 
expired  at  its  birth,  for  want  of 
hm nan  transactions  on  which  to 
subsist;  the  application  of  which 
would  overturn  almost  every  con- 
tract entered  into  before  the  act 
abolishing  all  laws,  eta, —  would 
unhinge  business  and  entirely  de- 
stroy confidence  in  the  country. 

"  There  is  no  case  like  the  present 
to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  In  every  instance  cited  in 
the  books  the  acquired  country  had 
a  population  of  its  own,  governed 
by  known  laws;  and  the  rate  of 
emigration  had  been  small,  com- 
pared to  the  number  of  the  origi- 
nal inhabitants.  History  may  be 
searched  in  vain  for  an  instance 
parallel  with  the  emigration  to  this 
country.  If  it  would  be  unjust  to 
compel  a  densely  populated  state 
to  take  notice  of  the  laws  of  the  con- 
queror or  acquiring  power,  with- 
out any  other  act  than  that  of  sub- 
mission or  cession,  it  would  be  still 
more  unjust  in  this  country,  where 
the  American  population  so  greatly 
outnumbered  the  natives,  to  com- 
pel us  to  apply  their  law,  instead 
of  our  own,  to  contracts.  In  this 
case,  the  rule  consequent  upon  the 
discover}'  of  an  uninhabited  terri- 
tory might  almost  apply;  and  to 
construe  these  contracts  by  a  sys- 
tem of  laws  not  adapted  to  the  age 


GENERAL   NATURE    OF   STATUTORY    LAW. 


37 


in  the  Union.1  The  same  general  form  of  government,  the 
same  general  laws  for  the  administration  of  justice  and  the 
protection  of  private  rights,  which  had  existed  in  the  states 
prior  to  the  rebellion,  remained  during  its  continuance  and 
afterwards.  As  far  as  the  acts  of  the  states  did  not  impair, 
or  tend  to  impair,  the  supremacy  of  the  national  authority, 
or  the  just  rights  of  the  citizens  under  the  constitution,  they 
have,  in  general,  been  treated  as  binding.2 

These  laws,  necessary  in  their  recognition  and  admin  is- 


nor  to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions, 
altering  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
parties,  and  giving  to  them  condi- 
tions which  were  never  intended, 
would  work  the  grossest  injustice." 
A  rehearing  was  granted,  and  at 
a  subsequent  term  a  different  con- 
clusion was  arrived  at,  and  the  fore- 
going views  were  rejected.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  court,  by  Heydenfeldt, 
J.,  said:  ''When  the  territory  now 
comprised  in  the  state  of  California 
was  under  Mexican  dominion,  its 
judicial  system  was  that  of  the 
Roman  law.  modified  by  Spanish 
and  Mexican  legislation.  Upon  the 
formation  of  the  present  state  gov- 
ernment that  system ivas  ordained 
by  a  constitutional  provision  to  be 
continued  until  it  should  be 
changed  by  the  legislature."  2  Cal. 
568.  See  Ryder  v.  Cohn,  37  Cal. 
69,  per  Rhodes,  J.,  dissenting. 

When  the  King  of  England  con- 
quers a  country,  there,  the  con- 
queror, by  saving  the  lives  of  the 
people  conquered,  gains  a  right  and 
property  in  such  people,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  he  may  irnposo 
upon  them  such  laws  as  he  pleases. 
But  until  such  laws  are  given  by 
the  conquering  prince,  the  laws 
and  customs  of  the  conquered 
country  hold    place,    unless  they 


are  contrary  to  the  conqueror's 
religion,  enact  something  malum 
in  se,  or  are  silent;  in  all  such 
cases  the  laws  of  the  conquering 
country  prevail.  2  P.  Wms.  75. 
iHorn  v.  Lockhart,  17  Wall.  570, 

21  L.  Ed.  657;  Texas  v.  White,  7 
Wall.  700,  19  L.  Ed.  227;  Sprott  v. 
United  States,  20  Wall.  459,  22  L. 
Ed.  371,  8  Ct.  of  CI.  499;  Williams 
v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  176,  24  L.  Ed. 
716;  Watson  v.  Stone,  40  Ala.  451, 
91  Am.  Dec.  484;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v. 
United  States.  8  Ct.  of  CI.  449; 
Hawkins  v.  Filkins,  24  Ark.  286; 
Harlan  v.  State,  41  Miss.  566;  Berry 
v.  Bellows,  30  Ark.  198;  Shattuck 
v.  Daniel,  52  Miss.  834;  Cook  v. 
Oliver,  1  Woods,  437,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3164;  Hatch  v.  Burroughs,  id.  439, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6203;  Seymour  v. 
Bailey,  66  111.  288. 

*  Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  176, 
24  L.  Ed.  716;  Keith  v.  Clark,  97 
U.  S.  454,  24  L.  Ed.  1071;  Livings- 
ton v.  Jordan,  Chase's  Dec.  454; 
Selden  v.  Preston,  11  Bush,  191; 
Pennywit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  600, 

22  Am.  Rep.  340;  Dillard  v.  Alex- 
ander, 9  Heisk.  719;  Rockhold  v. 
Blevins,  6  Baxt.  115;  Dow  v.  John- 
son, 100  U.  S.  158.  25  L.  Ed.  032; 
Dorr  v.  Gibboney,  3  Hughes,  3o2, 
Fed.  Caa  No.  4006. 


GEN]  \::.\.    N  A  1 1  Ki:   OF   E  I  s>  I  "i  i>'i:v    law. 

tratioo  to  the  existence  of  organized  society,  were  the  same, 
with  Blight  exception,  whether  the  authorities  of  the  state 
acknowledged  allegiance  to  the  true  or  the  false  federal 
power.  They  were  the  fundamental  principles  Fur  which 
civil  society  is  organized  into  government  in  all  coun- 
and  must  be  respected  in  their  administration  under 
whatever  dominant  authority  they  may  be  exercised.  Jtis 
only  when  in  the  use  of  these  powers  substantial  aid  and 
comfort  was  given  or  intended  to  be  given  to  the  rebellion, 
when  the  functions  necessarily  reposed  in  the  state  for  the 
maintenance  of  civil  society  were  perverted  to  the  manifest 
and  intentional  aid  of  treason  against  the  government  of 
the  Union,  that  these  acts  are  void.3 

22  21),  Federal  and  state  statutes,— The  sovereign 
power  of  making  laws  in  the  United  States  is  divided  and 
qualified;  a  part  is  vested  in  the  federal  congress,  and  a 
part  in  the  several  state  legislatures.  Congress  has  a  legis- 
lative power  only  in  respect  to  certain  subjects  enumerated 
in  the  federal  constitution;  the  state  legislatures  have  a 
general  legislative  power  within  the  several  states.  They 
not  an  unlimited  power;  for  the  power  of  each  is  di- 
minished by  the  legislative  power  granted  to  congress,  and 
it  is  also  restricted  by  various  provisions  in  the  state  con- 
stitutions.4 

The  acts  of  congress  passed  in  the  exercise  of  the  enumer- 
ated powers  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, —  in  the  states, 
in   the   District  of  Columbia,  in  the  territories  throughout 

'Sprott    v.    United    States,    20  mission  to  the  authority,  however 

Wall.  464,  22  L.  Ed.  371;  Thorring-  spurious,   of  the  de  facto  power. 

.  Smith,  8WalLl.19L.Ed.861.  Baker  v.  Wright,  1  Bush,  500:  Lay 

The  occupation  of  a  place  by  a  v.  Succession  of  O'Neil,  29  La.  Ann. 

Confederate  army  and  the  instal-  722;  Railroad  v.  Hurst,  11  Heisk. 
lation  of  a  temporary  civil  govern- 
under  its  military  cover,  sus-        4  Donnell  v.  State,  48  Miss.  079, 

I  CO-   .■•■!■  -nsively  with   their  12  Am.  Rep.  375;  Thayer  v.  Hedges, 

i         ■    the    government  22   Ind.   282;  Blair   v.   Ridgely,   41 

and  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  not  Mo.  68,  97   Am.  Dec.  248;  Sears  v. 

only  compelled  but  legalized  sub-  CottrelL  5  Mich.  251,256. 


GENEKAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW.  39 

the  federal  domain,  or  over  such  part  as  such  acts  are  by 
their  terms  intended  to  operate.  The  state  government 
cannot  gainsay  such  laws,  nor  resist  their  authority.  All 
individuals  within  the  territory  to  which  such  laws  are  ap- 
plicable are  subject  to  their  constraining  and  restraining 
effect.  In  the  same  sense,  the  state  laws  are  supreme  within 
the  state  on  all  the  subjects  to  which  they  constitutionally 
relate.  The  federal  government  cannot  gainsay  such  laws 
nor  resist  their  authority.5 

Both  federal  and  state  laws  in  their  proper  domain  of 
subjects  are  supreme  laws  of  the  land;  the  former  as  con- 
cerning the  interests  of  all  the  states  or  the  Union,  and  the 
latter  as  concerning  the  local  affairs  and  internal  interests 
of  the  particular  state.  State  laws  must  give  way  to  valid 
acts  of  congress6  and  to  treaties  made  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment.7 The  construction  given  to  a  federal  statute  by 
the  federal  supreme  court  is  binding  upon  the  state  courts,3 
and  will  be  followed  out  of  comity  even  in  a  matter  not 
cognizable  in  the  federal  courts.9     So  the  construction  of  a 

5  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  inconsistent   with    it.     Old    Town 

16  L.  Ed.  169;  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  Bank  v.  McCormick,  96  Md.  341; 

6  Wheat,  264,  3S0-390,  5  L.  Ed.  257;  R.  H.Herron  Co.  v.  Superior  Court, 

Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat,  1,  6  L.  136  Cal.  279,  68  Pao.  814. 

Ed.  23;  Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  U.  8  Haseltine  v.   Central    National 

S.  251,  25  L.  Ed.  648;  Ex  parte  £ie-  Bank,   155  Mo.   66,   56  S.  W.  895; 

bold,  100  U.  S.  371,  25  L.  Ed.  717;  Board  of  Trustees  v.  Cuppett,  52 

Martin   v.  Hunter,   1   Wheat.  304,  Ohio  St.  567,  40  N.  E.   792;    First 

343,  4  L.  Ed.  97;  Donnell  v.  State,  National  Bank  v.  Chapman,  9  Ohio 

48  Miss.  679,  12  Am.  Rep.  375;  Coo-  C.  C,  79;  Portland  National  Bank 

ley,  Const.  Lim.  7-27.  v.  Scott,  20  Ore.  421,  20  Pac.  270. 

e  Chan  v.  Brandt,  45  Minn.  93,  47  9  York  v.  Conde,  147  N.  Y.  4S6,  43 

N.  W.  461.  N.  E.  193,  affirming  71   Hun,  614. 

7  Blythe  v.  Hinckley,  127  Cal.  431,  But  no  principle  of  comity  recpu'res 

59  Pac.  787;  Adams   v.  Akerlund,  the  courts  of  one  state  to  follow 

168  111.  632,  48  N.  E.  454;  Scharpf  v.  the  construction  put  upon  an  act 

Schmidt,  172  111.  255,  50  N.  R  182.  of  congress  by  the  courts  of  an- 

State  insolvent  laws  are  displaced  other  state.     Southern   Ry.  Co.  v. 

by  the    national   bankruptcy  act  Harrison,  119  Ala.  539,  24  So.  552,  72 

only  to  the  extent  that  they  are  Am.  St.  Rep.  936,  43  L.  R,  A.  385. 


l.l'MKAl      NAITKK    OF    BTATUTOBY     LAW. 

state  statute  by  the  state  supremo  court  will  be  followed  by 
the  federal  courts.1' 

^  23  (22).  Botb  the  federal  and  state  laws  belong  to  one 

•u.  and,  though  emanating  from  different  legislative 
bodies,  they  are  not  hostile  nor  foreign  to  each  other.  ]n 
each  state,  the  laws  of  congress  applicable  thereto  operate 
of  their  own  vigor.  All  persons  must  take  notice  of  them, 
and  are  presumed  to  know  them;  all  branches  of  the  state 
government  take  notice  of  them;  they  are  within  the  judi- 
cial knowledge  of  the  state  courts. 

The  laws  of  one  state  are  foreign  to  other  states,  and  are 
so  regarded  in  their  jurisprudence  even  as  administered  in 
the  federal  courts.  But  the  laws  of  each  state  are  laws  operat- 
ing within  the  territorial  sovereignty  of  the  Union,  and 

fore,  as  to  the  federal  courts,  they  are  not  foreign  laws. 
All  the  federal  courts  take  judicial  notice  of  the  public 
statutes  of  the  states.  In  Owings  v.  Hull,11  a  resort  was  had 
to  the  laws  of  Louisiana  to  determine  the  evidentiary  value 
of  a  cop3T  of  a  bill  of  sale  on  record  in  a  notary's  oilier. 
Mr.  Justice  Story,  speaking  for  the  court,  said:  "TVe  are  of 
opinion  that  the  circuit  court  [sitting  in  the  district  of 
Maryland]  was  bound  to  take  judicial  notice  of  the  laws  of 
Louisiana.  The  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States  are 
created  by  congress,  not  for  the  purpose  of  administering 
the  local  law  of  a  single  state  alone,  but  to  administer  the 
laws  of  all  the  states  in  the  Union,  in  cases  to  which  they 

ctively  apply.  The  judicial  power  conferred  on  the 
general  government  by  the  constitution  extends  to  many 
cases  arising  under  the  laws  of  the  different  states.  And 
this  court  is  called  upon,  in  the  exercise  of  its  appellate 

10  Covington  v.  Kentucky,  173  U.  203;  Sehaeffer  v.  Werling,  188  U. 

a  C.  Rep.  888,  43    L  Ed.  S.  .016,  23  S.  C.  Rep.  449.    In  People 

679;    Knights  Templars    and   Ma-  v.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Disk,  128  CaJ. 

Life  Indemnity  Co.  v.  Jarman,  447,  CI  Pac.  8(5,  the  court  refused  to 

187  U.    S.   l'.C,    23  S.  C.   Rep.   108;  follow  a  construction  given  to  a 

Iowa  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  187  U.  California  statute  by  the  United 

'■><*;  Mauley  v.  States  supreme  court. 

l-,7    U.  S.  547,   33  S.  C  Rep.         "  9  Pet.  024,  9  L.  Ed.  24G. 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATDTOEY    LAW.  41 

jurisdiction,  constantly  to  take  notice  of  and  administer  the 
jurisprudence  of  all  the  states.  That  jurisprudence  is  then, 
in  no  just  sense,  a  foreign  jurisprudence,  to  be  proved  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  by  the  ordinary  modes  of  proof 
by  which  the  laws  of  a  foreign  country  are  to  be  established ; 
but  it  is  to  be  judicially  taken  notice  of  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are  taken  notice  of  by 
these  courts."12 

§  24  (23).  Territorial  statutes.— It  is  settled  that  con- 
gress has  a  plenary  power  of  legislation  over  territory  be- 
longing to  the  United  States,  subject  to  the  restrictions  re- 
sulting from  our  republican  system  and  the  constitutional 
guaranties  of  personal  rights.13  "All  territory,"  says  Waite, 
C.  J.,  speaking  for  the  supreme  court,14  "  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States,  not  included  in  any  state,  must 
necessarily  be  governed  by  or  under  the  authority  of  con- 
gress. The  territories  are  but  political  subdivisions  of  the 
outlying  dominion  of  the  United  States.  They  bear  much 
the  same  relation  to  the  general  government  that  the  coun- 
ties do  to  the  states,  and  congress  may  legislate  for  them  as 
states  do  for  their  respective  municipal  organizations.  The 
organic  law  of  a  territory  takes  the  place  of  a  constitution 
as  the  fundamental  law  of  the  local  government.  It  is  ob- 
ligatory on  and  binds  the  territorial  authorities;   but  con- 

12  Pennington  v.  Gibson,  16  How.  ordinate  and  limited  parts  of  one 

65,  80,  81,  14  L.  Ed.  847;  Junction  complete  system  of  government. 

Ry.   Co.   v.   Bank  of  Ashland,   12  On  principle,  then,  in  the  courts  of 

Wall.  226,  20  L.  Ed.  385;  Cheever  the  United  States,  the  judgment  of 

v.  Wilson,  9  Wall.   108,   19  L.  Ed.  a  state  court  ought  to  be  regarded 

604;  Woodworth  v.  Spafford,  2  Mc-  as  a  domestic  judgment— a  judg- 

Lean,  168,  175,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,020;  ment  given  within  the  territorial 

Bennett  v.  Bennett,  Deady,  309,  Fed.  sovereignty  of  the  United  States, 

Cas.  No.  1318;  Hathaway  v.  Mut.  and  provable  in  the  ordinary  way 

Life  Ins.  Co.,  99  Fed.  534.     In  Ben-  by  the  certificate  of  the  custodian 

nett  v.    Bennett,   the  court  said:  of  the  original  —  the  clerk  of  the 

"The  national  and  state  govern-  court." 

ments,  although  vested  with  dis-  13  Whart.  Am.  L.,  §  404. 

tinct  jurisdictions,  are  in  no  sense  14  First  National  Bank  v.  Ynnk- 

foreign  to  each  other,  but  are  sub-  ton,  101  U.  S.  129,  25  L.  Ed.  1016. 


42  NIB]     "i     BTATI  TOES    LAW. 

is  supreme,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  department 
of  its  governmental  authority,  lias  all  tho  powers  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  except  suoh  as  have  been  ex- 

v  or  by  implication  reserved  in  the  prohibitions  of  tho 
constitution.  In  the  organic  act  of  Dakota  there  was  no 
express  reservation  of  the  power  in  congress  to  amend  the 
acts  of  the  territorial  legislature;  but  none  was  necessary. 
Such  a  power  is  an  incident  of  sovereignty,  and  continues 
until  granted  away.  Congress  may  not  only  abrogate  laws 
of  the  territorial  legislatures,  but  it  may  itself  legislate  di- 
rectly for  the  local  government.  It  may  make  a  void  act 
of  the  territorial  legislature  valid,  and  a  valid  act  void.  In 
other  words,  it  has  full  and  complete  legislative  authority 
over  the  people  of  the  territories,  and  all  tho  departments 
of  the  territorial  government.  It  may  do  for  tho  territories 
what  the  people,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
may  do  for  the  states."  Is  A  territorial  act  to  be  valid  must 
conform  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  to  tho 
grant  of  power  from  congress.18  It  has  also  been  held  that 
a  territorial  act  must  be  reasonable  or  it  will  be  void,  and 
the  territorial  legislature  is  likened  in  this  respect  to  tho 
legislative  body  of  a  municipality.17     Where  a  section  of  a 

^  Mormon     Church     v.    United  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  429,  5  S.  G 

States,  136  U.  S.  1,  10  S.  C.  Rep.  792, 34  Rep.  93:>,  29  L.  Ed.  89. 

]..  Ed.  178;  Cope  v.  Cope,  137  U.  S.  17  People  v.  Daniels,  6  Utah,  288, 

:  S.  C.  Rep.  222,  34  L.  Ed.  832;  22  Pac.  159.     The  court  says:  "In 

Allen  v.  Reed,  10  OKI.  105,  63  Pac.  the  organic  act,   congress,   under 

<  loodson   v.  United  States,  7  restrictions,  express  or  implied,  con- 

OKI.   117,  o4  Pac.  423;  Territory  v.  fers  upon  the  territorial  legislature 

nor,  5  Dak.  397,41  N.  W.  746,  authority  to  legislate  with  respect 

3  L.  R,  A.  to  such  subjects  as  concern   the 

l<r  v.  Stevenson,  2  Idaho,  people  of  the  territory.     When  the 

180. 9  Pac.  642;  Stevenson  v.  Moody,  authority  with  respect  to  the  sub- 

2  Idaho,  260,  12  Pac,  902;  Territory  ject   is  specific,  and  its  extent  is 

v.  Goyott,  9  Mont   46,22  Pac.  134;  clearly   defined,  the  discretion  of 

\.   Henderson,  1  Okl.  384,  33  the    legislature     within    constitu- 

l;  People  v.  Daniels, 6  Utah,  tional   limitations  cannot  be  ques- 

.  Pac.  159;  Territory  v.  Blom-  tioned;  the  denial  of  such  discre- 

j  An/-   204,  11  Pac.  671;  Ex  tion  would  be  a  denial  of  the  power 


GENERAL   NATURE   OF   STATUTORY    LAW.  43 

territorial  act  is  void,  because  not  within  its  title,  as  re- 
quired by  the  laws  of  congress,  the  approval  of  the  act  by 
congress  cures  the  defect.18  After  a  territorial  act  has  been 
approved  by  congress  it  cannot  be  repealed  or  amended  by 
the  territorial  legislature.19 

§  25  (24).  The  existence  of  this  authority  in  congress 
was  from  the  early  days  of  the  republic  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion. It  does  not  rest  in  any  acknowledged  specific  grant 
in  the  constitution,  nor  did  it  await  a  discovery  of  any  other 
power  from  which  by  general  agreement  it  was  to  be  im- 
plied. In  American  Insurance  Co.  v.  Canter,20  Marshall, 
C.  J.,  said:  "Perhaps  the  power  of  governing  a  territory  be- 
longing to  the  United  States  which  has  not,  by  becoming  a 
state,  acquired  the  means  of  self-government,  may  result 
necessarily  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  "  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  any  particular  state,  and  is  within  the  power  and 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  The  right  to  govern  may 
be  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire  terri- 
tory. "Whichever  may  be  the  source  whence  the  power  is 
derived,  the  possession  of  it  is  unquestioned."  And  in  an- 
other part  of  the  opinion  he  said:  "In  legislating  for  them 
[the  territories]  congress  exercises  the  combined  powers  of 
the  general  and  of  a  state  government."21     In  the  late  case 

of  congress;  but  when  the  power  will  not  presume  that  congress  in- 

is  given  in  general  terms,  and  the  tended  to  authorize  the  legislature 

extent  to  which  it  may  be  exer-  to  make  an  unjust,  an  unreason- 

cised  upon  the  subject  is  not  ex-  able,  an  unequal,  or  an  oppressive 

pressly  limited  and  clearly  defined  law."    pp.  292,  293. 

in  the  organic  act,  then  the  terri-  18  Karasek  v.  Peier,  22  Wash.  419, 

torial  legislature  must  exercise  its  61  Pac.  33,  50  L.  R.  A.  345. 

discretion.     So  far  as  that  discre-  19  Martin  v.  Territory,  8  Okl.  41, 

tion  is    expressly   limited  by  the  56  Pac.  712;  Murphy  v.  Utter,  186 

constitution   or    the    organic  act  U.  S.  95,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  776,  46  L.  Ed. 

such  limitation  must  be  observed;  1070. 

but  when  it  is  not,  the  legislature  20  1  Pet.  511,  541,  7  L.  Ed.  242. 

must  follow  the  dictates  of  reason  21  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How. 

and  justice.     The  law  must  be  rea-  445,  15  L.  Ed.  691 ;  Benner  v.  Porter,, 

sonable  and  just,  because  the  court  9  How.  235,  242,  13  L.  Ed.  119. 


11 


GENERAL    NATUB1     OF    BTATUTOBT    LAW. 


whioh  lias  Wen  referred  to,ffl  the  ohief  justice,  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  court,  recognizes  the  samo  uncertainty  of 
derivation,  and  repeats  the  announcement  absolutely  that 
the  existence  of  the  power  is  conceded.-3 


First  Nat  Bank  v.  Yankton, 
101  V.  a  180,  85  L  Ed.  104a 

w  In  Dred  Scott  v.  Bandford,  19 
How.  888,  1")  L*  Ed  881,  the  learn- 
ing on  this  point  was  exhausted. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  court,  deli v- 
by  Taney,  C.  J.,  it  is  said: 
"The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  has 
laid  much  stress  upon  that  article 
in  thf  constitution  which  confers 
on  congress  the  power 'to  dispose 
of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory 
her  property  belonging  to  t lie 
United  States;'  but,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court,  that  provision 
has  no  bearing  on  the  present  con- 
troversy, and  the  power  there  given, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  confined, 
and  was  intended  to  be  confined,  to 
the  territory  which  at  that  time 
belonged  to  or  was  claimed  by  the 
United  States,  and  was  within  their 
boundaries  as  settled  by  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain;  and  can  have 
no  influence  upon  a  territory  after- 
wards acquired  from  a  foreign  gov- 
ernment. It  was  a  special  provision 
for  a  known  and  particular  terri- 
tory, and  to  meet  a  present  emer- 
j .  and  nothing  more." 

In  another  part  of  the  opinion  the 
authority  of  congress  over  territory 
subsequently  acquired  was  thus 
-sed: 

"And  indeed  the  power  exercised 
byo  '  :  -quire  territory  and 

lish  a  government  there,  ac- 
cording to  its  own  unlimited  dis- 


cretion, was  viewed  with  great 
jealousy  by  the  leading  statesmen 
of  the  day.  And  in  the  Federalist 
(No.  38),  written  by  Mr.  Madison,  he 
speaks  of  the  acquisition  of  the 
Northwestern  Territory  by  the  con- 
federated states,  by  the  cession  from 
Virginia,  and  the  establishment  of 
a  government  there,  as  an  exercise 
of  power  not  warranted  by  the  ar- 
ticles of  confederation,  and  danger- 
ous to  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
And  he  urges  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  as  a  security  and  safe- 
guard against  such  an  exercise  of 
power. 

"  We  do  not  mean,  however,  to 
question  the  power  of  congress  in 
this  respect.  The  power  to  expand 
the  territory  of  the  United  States 
by  the  admission  of  new  states  is 
plainly  given;  and  in  the  construc- 
tion of  this  power  by  all  the  depart- 
ments of  the  government,  it  has 
been  held  to  authorize  an  acquisi- 
tion of  territory,  not  tit  for  admis- 
sion at  the  time,  but  to  be  admitted 
as  soon  as  its  population  and  situa- 
tion would  entitle  it  to  admission. 
It  is  acquired  to  become  a  state, 
and  not  to  be  held  as  a  colony  and 
governed  by  congress  with  absolute 
authority;  and,  as  the  propriety  of 
admitting  a  new  state  is  committed 
to  the  sound  discretion  of  congress, 
the  power  to  acquire  territory  for 
that  purpose,  to  be  held  by  the 
United  States  until  it  is  in  a  suit- 
able condition  to  become  a  state 


GENERAL    NATURE    OF    STATUTORY    LAW. 


45 


§  26  (25).  Territories  liave  but  temporary  governments 
—  Are  in  tutelage  to  become  states. —  The  federal  consti- 
tution provides  for  the  admission  of  new  states.24  The  pro- 
vision is  general  and  has  been  applied  not  only  to  the  ad- 
mission of  new  states  in  territory  belonging  to  the  govern- 
ment when  the  constitution  was  adopted,  but  to  new  states 
formed  in  newly  acquired  territory.  It  has  been  decided 
to  be  contrary  to  the  constitution  to  acquire  territory  with 
any  other  view  than  to  the  formation  and  admission  of  new 
states.25 

"The  very  fact,"  says  Mr.  Wharton,  "that  territories  are 
infant  states,  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  maturity,. 


upon  an  equal  footing  with  the 
other  states,  must  rest  upon  the 
same  discretion." 

24  Sec.  3,  art.  4, 

2*In  the  majority  opinion  in 
Dred  Scott  v.  Sanford,  already- 
cited,  the  chief  justice  said:  "There 
is  certainly  no  power  given  by  the 
constitution  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  establish  or  maintain  col- 
onies bordering  on  the  United 
States  or  at  a  distance,  to  be  ruled 
and  governed  at  its  own  pleasure; 
nor  to  enlarge  its  territorial  limits 
in  any  way,  except  by  the  admis- 
sion of  new  states.  That  power  is 
plainly  given;  and  if  a  new  state  is 
admitted,  it  needs  no  further  leg- 
islation by  congress,  because  the 
constitution  itself  defines  the  rela- 
tive rights  and  powers  and  duties 
of  the  state,  and  the  citizens  of  the 
state  and  the  federal  government. 
But  no  power  is  given  to  acquire  a 
territory  to  be  held  and  governed 
permanently  in  that  character." 
He  amplifies  thus  on  another  page: 
"The  principle  upon  which  our 
governments  rest,  and  upon  which 
alone  they  continue  to  exist,  is  the 


union  of  states,  sovereign  and  in- 
dependent, within  their  own  limits 
in  their  internal  and  domestic  con- 
cerns, and  bound  together  as  one 
people  by  a  general  government 
possessing  certain  enumerated  and 
restricted  powers,  delegated  to  it 
by  the  people  of  the  several  states, 
and  exercising  supreme  authority 
within  the  scope  of  the  powers 
granted  to  it,  throughout  the  do- 
minion of  the  United  States.  A 
powei",  therefore,  in  the  general 
government  to  obtain  and  hold 
colonies  and  dependent  territories 
over  which  they  might  legislate 
without  restriction,  would  be  in- 
consistent with  its  own  existence 
in  its  present  form.  Whatever  it 
acquires  it  acquires  for  the  benefit 
of  the  people  of  the  several  states 
who  created  it.  It  is  their  trustee 
acting  for  them,  and  charged  with 
the  duty  of  promoting  the  interests 
of  the  whole  people  of  the  Union 
in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  spe- 
cifically granted."  See  historical 
notes  in  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice 
Campbell  in  same  case,  pp.  507-508. 
Whart.  Am.  L,,  §§462,464 


GENERAL    nauki;   OF   siaii  nn;v    LAW. 

-  that  they  are  to  be  governed  on  the  same  general 
principles,  as  far  as  is  applicable,  as  are  states,  just  as  in- 
fants, mutaiia  mutandis,  are  governed  on  the  same  general 
principles,  so  far  as  concerns  safeguards,  as  are  adults."2" 
Only  a  political  change  is  produced  by  admission  into  the 
Union  as  a  Btate.  Congress  then  ceases  to  legislate  for  its 
people*,  or  in  regard  to  their  internal  and  domestic  concerns. 
They  have  thus  been  ad  mitt. '(I  to  the  exercise  of  the  right 
overnment.  The  territorial  laws  enacted  by  con- 
g  or  the  local  legislature  continue  in  force  so  far  as  they 
are  consistent  with  the  new  condition  of  statehood  and  the 
provisions  of  the  state  constitution.27 

1  .  EJ  lot.  ritory  v.   Lee,  2  Mont   124;  Am. 

19.    See  Benner  v.  Por-     Ins.  Co.  v.  Canter,  1  Pet.  511,  7  L. 
ter,  8  How,  334  18  L.  Ed  119;  Ter-    Ed  242. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   ENACTMENT  OF  LAWS   AND   HOW  THEIR   EXISTENCE 
IS  ESTABLISHED. 

§  27  (26).  The  legislature. —  It  is  a  primary  requisite  to 
the  enactment  of  laws  that  there  be  a  legal  legislature.  In 
time  and  place  the  members  entitled  so  to  do  must  lawfully 
convene.1  A  legislature  elected  under  a  void  apportion- 
ment act  is  a  de facto  legislature  and  its  acts  are  valid.2 
"When  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  house  meet  and 
organize  at  the  regular  place  of  meeting,  they  constitute 
the  legal  house,  though  the  governor  and  senate  recognize 
the  minority  who  have  also  organized  at  another  place.3 
The  senate  of  New  Jersey  consists  of  twenty-one  members 
and  seven  are  elected  each  year.  It  has  been  held  that  it  is 
not  a  continuous  body,  but  must  be  organized  anew  each 
year,  and  that,  where  nine  old  members  and  one  new  or- 
ganized one  body  and  four  old  members  and  seven  new  or- 
ganized another,  the  latter,  being  organized  by  a  majority, 
was  the  legal  senate.4  But  where  the  question  is  whether 
a  statute  was  legally  passed,  the  courts  will  not  go  back  of 
the  journals  to  inquire  whether  the  legislature  was  legally 
constituted.5 

The  American  legislature,  acting  under  written  constitu- 

iTennant'sCase,  3  Neb.  409;  State  4  State  v.  Rogers,  56  N.  J.  L.  480, 

v.  Judge.  29  La.  Ann.  223;  Macon,  28  AtL  726. 

etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Little,  45  Ga.  370;  8  Auditor-General  v.  Supervisors, 

Gormley  v.  Taylor,  44  Ga.  76.     See  89  Mich.  552,  51  N.  W.  483;  State  v. 

Rohrbacker  v.  Jackson,  51  Miss.  735;  Smith,  44  Ohio  St.  348,  7  N.  E.  447. 

People  v.  Hatch,  33  111.  9,  151.  In  both  these  cases  an  act  was  as 

2  State  v.  Cunningham,  81  Wis.  sailed  on  the  ground  that  it  never 
440,  51  N.  W.  724,  15  L.  R.  A.  561.  received  the  vote  of  a  majority  of 

3  In  re  Gunn,  50  Kan.  155,  32  Pac.  the  senate.     It  was  set  up  that  a 
470.  948,  19  L  R.  A.  519.  minority  of  the  senate  met  in  the 


1    \.\c    i  Ml    \  [     OF     LAWS. 

t  ions,  can  only  exercise  ;i  delegated  power.    It  must  keep 

uithm  the  limits  of  power  granted  to  it  ami  observe  the  di- 
ns as  to  membership,  the  time  of  meeting  and  Length 

of  its  sessions,  procedure  in  its  deliberations,  the  number 
of  votes  necessary  for  any  purpose,  and  the  making  of  its 
records. 

§  Ms  (27).  Hott  existence  of  statute  established  —  Eng- 
lish rule. — The  British  parliament,  including  the  three 
great  estates  of  the  realm  —  the  king,  lords  and  commons, — 
sses  a  transcendent  power.  It  enacts  laws  by  a  pro- 
cedure devised  by  itself,  and  it  is  subject  to  no  paramount 
law.  "When  a  statute  is  framed  and  recorded  according  to 
its  traditional  forms  as  an  act  of  parliament,  it  is  a  record 
which  expresses  the  will  of  the  sovereign  power.  General 
acts  are  "enrolled  by  the  clerk  of  the  parliament,  and  de- 
livered over  into  the  chancery,  which  enrollment  in  the 
chancery  makes  them  the  original  record."  Private  acts 
filed,  sealed,  and  remaining  with  the  clerk  of  parliament, 
are  also  original  records.6     The  record  is  deemed  a  high 

absence  of  the  majority,  voted  to  versive  of  the  independence  of  the 
unse  it  certain  of  the  majority  and  legislature  as  a  co-ordinate  branch 
to  seat  others  in  their  places,  who,  of  the  government.  There  is  no 
joining  with  the  minority,  passed  authority  for  it  in  the  constitution 
the  act.  But  the  court  refused  to  and  laws  of  this  state,  and  it  is  op- 
consider  these  facts,  and  in  the  lat-  posed  to  the  practice  and  polity  of 
ter  case  it  is  said:  "  As  to  the  aver-  our  system  of  government"  p.  866. 
ment  that  the  passage  of  the  act  And  see  People  v.  Mahaney,  13 
was  part  of  a  conspiracy,  entered  Mich.  481;  Lyons  v.  Woods,  153 
into  between  the  president  of  the  U.  S.  619,  14  S.  C.  Rep.  959,  38  L.  Ed. 
senate    and    seventeen    members,  854. 

carried  into  effect  in  the  absence  6King  v.  Arundel,   Hob.   110;  5 

from  the  state  of  a  majority  of  the  Comyn's  Dig.  Parliament;  1  Phil. 

members  of  the  senate,  it  is  suffi-  Evi.  316.     Anciently,  the  manner 

oient  to  say  that  such  suggestions  of  proceeding  in  parliament  was 

have  frequently  been  made  for  the  much  different  from  what  it  is  at 

purpose    of   inducing  judicial   in-  the  present  day;  for,  formerly,  the 

quiry  into  the  conductof  legislative  bill  was  in  the  form  of  a  petition, 

bodies,  but  the  inquiry  has  as  fre-  and  these  petitions  were  entered 

quently  been  declined  by  the  courts  upon  tiie  lords-rolls,  and  upon  these 

as  not  only  indecorous,  but  as  sub-  rolls  the  royal  assent  was  likewise 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


49 


record.  It  imports  absolute  verity,  and  must  be  tried  by  it- 
self, teste  meijjso.  This  is  the  dignity  and  quality  of  all 
technical  records.  No  plea  can  raise  any  other  question  re- 
garding a  record  than  that  of  its  existence.  Upon  that  issue 
the  record  itself  is  the  only  evidence;  the  trial  is  merely  by 
the  record.  A  record  or  enrollment  is  a  monument  of  so 
high  a  nature,  and  imports  in  itself  such  absolute  verity, 
that  if  it  be  pleaded  that  there  is  no  such  record  there  is  no 
trial  by  witnesses,  jury  or  otherwise  than  by  the  court  in- 
specting the  record  itself.7  The  court  being  bound  to  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  laws,  no  plea  can  be  necessary  or  per- 
mitted denying  the  existence  of  the  record  of  an  act  of  par- 


entered;  and  upon  this,  as  a  ground- 
work, the  judges  used,  at  the  end 
of  the  parliament,  to  draw  up  the 
act  of  parliament  into  the  form  of 
the  statute  which  was  afterwards 
entered  upon  the  rolls,  called  the 
statute-rolls;  which  were  different 
from  those  called  the  lords-rolls,  or 
the  rolls  of  parliament;  upon  these 
statute-rolls  neither  the  bill  nor 
petition  from  the  commons,  nor 
the  answer  of  the  lords,  nor  the 
royal  assent,  were  entered,  but  only 
the  statute,  as  it  was  drawn  up 
and  penned  by  the  judges;  and 
this  was  the  method  till  about 
Henry  the  Fifth's  time.  In  his 
time,  it  was  desired  that  the  acts 
of  parliament  might  be  drawn  up 
and  penned  by  the  judges  before 
the  end  of  parliament;  and  this 
was  by  reason  of  a  complaint  then 
made,  that  the  statutes  were  not 
equally  and  fairly  drawn  up  and 
worded.  After  the  parliament  was 
dissolved  or  prorogued  in  Henry 
the  Sixth's  time,  the  former  method 
was  altered,  and  these  bills  con- 
tenentes  forr.iam  actus  parliaments 


were  first  used  to  be  brought  into 
the  house.  The  bills  (before  they 
were  brought  into  the  house)  were 
ready  drawn,  in  the  form  of  an  act 
of  parliament,  and  not  in  the  form 
of  a  petition,  as  before;  upon  which 
bill  it  was  written  by  the  com- 
mons, soit-e  baile  al  seigneurs;  and 
by  the  lords,  soit  bayle  al  roye;  and 
by  the  king,  le  roy  le  veut;  all  this 
was  written  upon  the  bill,  and  the 
bill,  thus  indorsed,  was  to  remain 
with  the  clerk  of  the  parliament, 
and  he  was  to  enter  the  bill  thus 
drawn  at  first,  in  the  form  of 
an  act  of  parliament  or  statute, 
upon  '  the  statute-rolls,  without 
entering  the  answer  of  the  king, 
lords  or  commons  upon  the  stat- 
ute-rolls, and  then  issued  out 
writs  to  the  sheriffs,  with  tran- 
script of  the  statute-rolls,  viz.:  of 
the  bill  drawn  at  first  in  the  form 
of  a  statute  and  without  the  an- 
swer of  the  king,  lords  and  com- 
mons, to  the  bill,  to  proclaim  the 
statute.  Bac.  Abr.,  title  Court  of 
Parliament,  F. 
1  2  Black.  Com.  331. 


BNAOTM]  N  i    OF    I  aws. 

liament    In  Prince's  Case,8  it  was  resolved  "  that  against  a 

genera]  aot  of  parliament,  or  such  act  whereof  the  judges 

ought  to  take  notice,  the  other  party  cannot  plead 

■</;    for  of  such  arts  the  judges  ought  to  take 

e;  but  if  it  be  misrecited  the  party  ought  to  demur  in 
law  upon  it.  And,  in  that  case,  the  law  is  grounded  upon 
great  reason;  for  God  forbid,  if  the  record  of  such  acts 
should  be  lost  or  consumed  by  fire  or  other  means,  that  it 
should  tend  to  the  general  prejudice  of  the  common  wealth  ; 
but  rather,  although  it  be  lost  or  consumed,  the  judges, 
either  by  the  printed  copy,  or  by  the  record  in  which  it 
was  pleaded,  or  by  other  means,  may  inform  themselves  of 
it."9 

29  (28).  Legislative  records. —  The  conclusiveness  of 
records  is  a  conclusion  of  the  common  law.  We  have  in 
America  the  common  law  so  far  as  it  is  suited  to  our  condi- 
tion. A  technical  record  here  has  the  same  effect  as  by  the 
common  law  of  England,  except  as  it  is  modified  by  the 
written  law,  or  conditions  are  so  changed  as  to  render  the 
common  law  inapplicable.  The  conditions  in  respect  to 
legislation  in  this  country,  where  a  mandatory  procedure 
is  prescribed  in  a  constitution,  are  not  the  same  as  in  Eng- 
land.1" 

8 8  Coke,  28.  are  so  transcendent  and  absolute 

9  Dwarris  on  St.  G13:  Sherman  v.  that  it  cannot  be  confined,  either 
Story,  30  CaL  276,  ><0  Am.  Dec.  'J-;  for  causes  or  persons,  within  any 
Eld  v.  Gorham,  20  Conn.  8.  bounds.     4  Inst.  86.    'And  so  long,' 

10  The  dissenting  opinion  of  adds  Sir  William  Blackstone,  'as 
Smith,  C.  J.,  in  Green  v.  Weller,  32    the    British   constitution  lasts,  it 

704,    is  instructive  on    this  may   be  safely   affirmed   that  the 

point    He  says:  "In  Great  Britain  power    of  parliament  is  absolute 

there  is    no  written  fundamental  and  uncontrolled.'    2  Com.  1G2. 

law  defining  and  limiting  the  pow  "A  void  act  of  legislation  neces- 

:  the  government,  by  which  sarily   implies  the  existence  of  a 

the  validity  of  the  acts  of  any  of  superior  and  controlling  power  in 

the    departments  may   be  tested,  the  state.     There  are  but  two  con- 

Tlie  parliament,  in  a  political  and  ceivable  reasons  for  which  an  act 

legislative  sense,  is  omnipotent  and  can    be  void.      First,  for  want  of 

supreme.     The  power  and  jurisdic-  power  in  the  legislature  to  pass  it. 

tion  of  parliament,  sayb  Lord  Coke,  Second,   because   it   has   not  been 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


51 


§  30  (29).  A  legislature  in  our  republican  system  of  gov- 
ernment is  a  representative  body.  Its  power  is  delegated 
by  a  charter  from  the  people  —  a  constitution.     This  is  a 


pissed  in  the  method  required  to 
make  it  valid.  And  the  univer- 
sally received  doctrine  in  England 
is,  that  an  act  of  parliament  of 
which  the  terms  are  explicit,  and 
the  meaning  plain,  cannot  be 
questioned  or  its  authority  con- 
trolled in  any  court  whatever.  The 
idea,  therefore,  of  an  unconstitu- 
tional law  of  parliament  can  have 
no  existence  under  the  English 
system  of  government.  The  par- 
liament rolls,  which  are  transcripts 
of  the  acts,  made  up  under  the 
supervision  of  officers  appointed  by 
parliament,  and  declared  by  law 
to  be  records,  necessarily,  I  may 
say  naturally,  are  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  the  stat- 
ute, and  imply  the  due  perform- 
ance of  the  necessary  prerequisites 
in  their  enactment.  It  is  a  rule 
which  flows  from  the  absolute  and 
unlimited  jurisdiction  and  power 
of  parliament. 

"The  principles  of  the  common 
law,  unsuited  to  our  conditions,  or 
repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  our  gov- 
ernment, have  no  existence  within 
this  commonwealth.  It  required 
no  act  of  positive  legislation  to  re- 
peal them.  They  have  been  ex- 
cluded by  the  silent  operation  of 
our  institutions.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  this  rule,  as  a  principle 
of  the  common  law,  can  have  no 
operation  within  this  state. 

"  For  under  the  American  theory 
of  government  the  jus  summi  im- 
perii, the  supreme,  absolute,  un- 
controlled authority  does  not  reside 


in  any  of  the  departments  of  the 
government,  nor  in  all  of  them 
united.  It  is  inherent  in  the  people, 
from  whom  all  power  is  derived, 
and  upon  whose  consent  all  gov- 
ernment is  founded.  The  consti- 
tution derives  its  existence  from 
the  immediate  act  and  consent  of 
the  people.  It  is  a  law  to  the  gov- 
ernment which  derives  its  just 
powers  therefrom,  or  from  the  as- 
sent of  the  governed,  for  whose 
benefit  that  power  is  intrusted.  As 
the  constitution  is  the  supreme 
law,  all  the  acts  of  the  government 
or  the  departments  thereof,  done 
in  contravention  of  its  provisions, 
are  inoperative  and  void.  An  act 
of  the  legislature  which  has  not 
been  passed  in  conformity  with  the 
directions  of  the  constitution,  is 
equally  void  with  one  whose  terms 
violate  its  provisions.  Bill  of 
Rights,  art.  3. 

"The  judiciary,  like  all  the  de- 
partments, are  bound  by  the  con- 
stitution, and  sworn  to  support  it. 
It  is,  therefore,  their  duty  to  pro- 
nounce an  act  of  the  legislature 
null,  and  to  refuse  to  give  it  effect, 
if  it  be  void  for  either  of  these 
causes." 

In  Sherman  v.  Story,  30  CaL  253, 
89  Am.  Dec  93,  is  a  lucid  and 
thorough  exposition  of  the  com- 
mon law  on  this  subject,  and  it 
seems  to  have  been  properly  ap- 
plied to  the  case  under  considera- 
tion, for  there  was  no  departure 
from  a  constitutional  practice  com- 
plained of. 


1   N  A  i    i  Ml   M     OF     LAWS. 

Bacred  instrument,  and  upon  itaa  a  foundation  is  reared  the 
whole  fabric  of  our  civil  government.  It  confers  all  the 
pow<  rs  deemed  necessary  to  that  government;  in  its  limita- 
tions is  all  the  security  of  the  people  against  usurpation. 
Therefore,  it  is  one  of  the  beneficent  axioms  of  our  consti- 
tutional jurisprudence  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all 
the  power  possessed  and  exercised  by  the  organized  state; 

strictions  are  of  the  nature  of  prohibitions  and  manda- 
tory. The  authority  which  confers  the  power  to  make  laws 
lias  the  acknowledged  right  to  qualify  the  grant  and  per- 
emptorily regulate  the  exercise  of  the  power  conferred,  so 
that  acts  of  legislation  to  be  valid  must  not  only  be  within 

rant  and   not  exceeding  the  restrictions  imposed,  but 
also  be  passed  or  adopted  in  the  mode  or  by  the  procedure 
sribed." 

I  30).  Constitutional  provisions  prescribing  parlia- 
mentary procedure.— The  federal  constitution  and  that  of 
nearly  every  state  in  the  Union  contain  directions  in  re- 

to  the  manner  of  enacting  as  well  as  of  authenticating 
statutes.  These  directions  vary  in  terms  and  to  a  consider- 
able extent  in  substance.  As  to  some  very  important  par- 
ticulars compliance  will  not  appear  upon  the  face  of  the 
statute.  The  procedure  thus  regulated  and  directed  includes 
the  meeting  of  the  two  houses,  their  action  respectively  in 
the  introduction,  amendment  and  passage  of  bills,  commu- 
nications between  the  houses,  the  time  of  presenting  bills 
to  the  governor  for  approval,  and  of  his  action  thereon.  In 
part  their  procedure  is  historically  entered,  and  in  some 
particulars  required  to  be  entered  in  the  legislative  journals; 
in  part  it  so  occurs  that  material  points  will  not  be  or  are 
not  required  to  be  mentioned  in  any  record  or  olficial  memo- 
rial: as,  for  instance,  when  a  bill  is  presented  to  the  gov- 
ernor, or  when  he  approves  it.     Legislative  journals  were  in 

11  Legg  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  42  Md.  20 !;  id.  5  W;  Moody  v.  State,  48  id.  115, 

lolph,   77    Ala.    r>>J7;  17  Am.  Rep.  28;  Supervisors  v.  Hee- 

HutchiDSOn,  43   id.   721;  nan,  2  Minn.  330. 
Perry  County  v.   Railroad  Co.,  58 


ENACTMENT   OF   LAWS.  53 

use  in  the  British  parliament  at  the  time  our  legislative  prac- 
tice under  constitutions  commenced,  and  had  been  for  cen- 
turies. If  the  process  of  enacting  laws  is  not  regulated  by 
constitution;  or,  if  so  regulated,  the  provisions  on  that  sub- 
ject are  deemed  addressed  solely  to  the  law-making  depart- 
ment, the  journals  hold  the  same  place  in  our  polity  and  juris- 
prudence as  is  assigned  to  them  by  the  common  law.  They 
cannot  be  appealed  to  to  impeach  the  regular  record  of  a 
statutory  enactment.  That  record  whatever  it  may  be  im- 
ports absolute  verity;  imports  the  regular  enactment  of  the 
statute  by  the  proper  forms  of  legislation;  it  speaks  in  its 
own  words  the  sovereign  will.  Found  in  the  proper  custody 
it  proves  and  identifies  itself;  it  is  a  record  not  to  be  con- 
tradicted by  the  legislative  journals,  nor  by  any  other  evi- 
dence.12 

§  32  (31).  Courts  holding  enrolled  act  conclusive  — 
Missouri. —  If  the  enrollment  or  original  record  of  a  statute 
is  regular  on  its  face;  that  is,  if  the  act  is  framed  with  no 
infirmity  on  its  face,  is  duly  promulgated,13  or  properly 
authenticated  and  deposited  in  the  proper  office,  it  is  con- 
clusively presumed  to  have  been  regularly  enacted;  the  rec- 
ord is  invulnerable  to  collateral  attack  and  proves  itself. 
This  is  the  rule  in  several  states  having  constitutions  regu- 
lating the  legislative  procedure  and  requiring  legislative 
journals  to  be  kept.  A  leading  case  on  this  subject  is  Pa- 
cific Railroad  v.  The  Governor.14 

The  act  under  discussion  had  been  vetoed  by  the  gov- 
ernor, and  the  question  was  whether  it  had  been  subse- 
quently passed  by  the  proceedings  required  by  the  consti- 
tution.15 

12  Sherman  v.  Story,  30  Cal.  253,  15The  case  arose  under  the  con- 
89  Am.  Dec.  93;  People  v.  Burt,  43  stitution  of  1 820,  which  contained 
Cal.  560;  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  13  these  provisions:  ".  .  .  They 
Fed.  722.     See  ante,  §  29;  post,  £  57.  [the  houses]  shall  each,  from  time 

13  State  Lottery  Co.  v.  Richoux,  to  time,  publish  a  journal  of  their 
23  La.  Ann.  743,  8  Am.  Rep.  602;  proceedings,  except  such  parts  as 
Whited  v.  Lewis,  25  La.  Ann.  568.  may,  in  their  opinion,  require  se- 

14  23  Mo.  353,  66  Am.  Dec.  673.  crecy;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  on 


:•! 


IN  \.   ;  Ml  \  I    OF     LAWS. 


tt,  J.,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court,  used  this 
language :  "  "Whilst  the  power  of  the  courts  to  declare  a  law 
unconstitutional  is  admitted  on  all  hands  as  being  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  constitution  from  violation,  yet  such 
power  is  claimed   and   exercised  in    relation   to  laws  which 

on  their  face  that  the  constitutional  limit  has  been 
transcended.  The  reason  of  this  principle  limits  the  claim 
of  jurisdiction  to  such  cases.  The  constitution  is  designed 
to  limit  the  powers  of  the  government,  and  to  confine 
each  of  the  departments  to  its  appropriate  sphere.  If 
the  legislature  exceed  its  powers  in  the  enactment  of  a 
law,  the  courts  being  sworn  to  support  the  constitution 
must  judge  that  law  by  the  standard  of  the  constitution 
and  declare  its  [invalidity.  But  the  question  whether  a 
law  on  its  face  violates  the  constitution  is  very  different 
from  that  growing  out  of  the  non-compliance  with  the 
forms  required  to  be  observed  in  its  enactment.  In  the  one 
case  a  power  is  exercised,  not  delegated,  or  which  is  prohib- 
ited, and  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  law  is  deter- 


any  question  shall  be  entered  on 
the  journal,  at  the  desire  of  any 
two  members."    Art.  3,  sec.  18. 

Sec.  21.  "Bills  may  originate  in 
either  house,  and  may  be  altered, 
amended  or  rejected  by  the  other; 
and  every  bill  shall  be  read  on 
three  different  'lavs  in  each  house, 
unless  two-thirds  of  the  house 
where  the  same  is  depending  shall 
dispense  with  this  rule;  and  every 
bill,  having  passed  both  houses, 
shall  be  signed  by  the  speaker  of 
the  house  of  representatives  and  by 
the  president  of  the  senate." 

Art.  4.  sec.  10.  "  Every  bill  which 
shall  have  been  passed  by  both 
bouses  of  the  general  assembly, 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law,  be 
presented  to  the  governor  for  his 
approval.  If  he  approve,  he  shall 
sign  it;  if  not,  he  shall  return  it, 


with  his  objections,  to  the  house  in 
which  it  shall  have  originated,  and 
the  house  shall  cause  the  objec- 
1;  ns  to  be  entered  at  large  on  its 
journal,  and  shall  proceed  to  recon- 
sider the  bill.  If,  after  such  re- 
consideration, a  majority  of  all 
the  members  elected  to  that  house 
shall  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it 
shall  be  sent  together  with  the  ob- 
jections to  the  other  house,  by 
which  it  shall  be  in  like  manner 
reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by 
a  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  that  bouse,  it  shall  be- 
come a  law.  In  all  such  cases  the 
votes  of  both  houses  shall  be  taken 
by  yeas  and  nays;  the  names  of 
the  persons  voting  for  and  against 
the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the 
journal  of  each  house  respectively. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  55 

mined  from  the  language  of  it.  In  the  other,  the  law  is 
not,  in  its  terras,  contrary  to  the  constitution ;  on  its  face  it 
is  regular,  but  resort  is  had  to  something  behind  the  iaw  it- 
self in  order  to  ascertain  whether  the  general  assembly,  in 
making  the  law,  was  governed  by  the  rules  prescribed  for 
its  action  by  the  constitution.  This  would  seem  like  an  in- 
quisition into  the  conduct  of  the  members  of  the  general 
assembly,  and  it  must  be  seen  at  once  that  it  is  a  very  deli- 
cate power,  the  frequent  exercise  of  which  must  lead  to 
endless  confusion  in  the  administration  of  the  law." 

§  33  (32).  Further  on  in  the  opinion  the  learned  judge 
said:  "The  sense  of  the  words  in  which  the  forms  to  be 
observed  in  legislation  are  prescribed  may  be  matter  of 
doubt.  Different  opinions  may  be  entertained  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed,  as 
well  as  to  the  end  or  object  of  them.  This  very  case  fur- 
nishes an  illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  remark.  The 
members  of  the  general  assembly  may  conscientiously  be- 
lieve that  they  have  pursued  the  constitutional  course."5 

16  In  State  v.  Mead,  71  Mo.  266,  ness  is  entertained,  affix  his  signa- 

the    conditions    here    deprecated  ture,  which  fact  shall  be  noted  on 

were  fully  adopted  as  a  result  of  the    journal    and  the   bill   inline- 

subsequent  changes  in  the  consti-  diately  be  sent  to  the  other  house, 

tution.     The  act  in  question  was  When  it  reaches  the  other  house 

passed  under  a  constitution  con-  the  presiding  officer  thereof  shall 

taining  the  following  provision :  immediately  suspend  all  other  busi- 

"  No  bill  shall  become  a  law  until  ness,  announce  the  reception  of  the 

the  same  shall  have  been  signed  by  bill,    and    the    same    proceedings 

the  presiding  officers  of  each  of  the  shall    thereupon    be    observed   in 

two  houses  in  open  session.     And  every  respect  as  in   the  house  in 

before  such  officer  shall  affix  his  which   it  was  first  signed.     If  in 

signature  to  any  bill  he  shall  sus-  either    house    any    member   shall 

pend    all   other  business,   declare  object  that  any  substitution,  omis- 

that  such  bill  will  now  be  read,  and  sion  or  insertion  has  occurred,  so 

that  if   no  objection  be  made  he  that  the  bill  proposed  to  be  signed 

will  sign  the  same,  to  the  end  that  is  not  the  same  in  substance  and 

it  shall  become  a  law.    The  bill  form     as    when     considered    and 

shall  then  be  read  at  length,  and  if  passed  by  the  house,  or  that  any 

no  objection  be  made  he  shall  in  particular  clause  of  this  article  of 

the  presence  of  the  house,  in  open  the  constitution  has  been  violated 

session,  and  before  any  other  busi-  in  its  passage,  such  objections  shall 


1   \  ATI  MINI     OF     LAWS. 

But  to  give  the  executive  and  judicial  departments  a  right 
to  revise  this  exercise  of  thei*  judgment,  would  it  not  be 
subjecting  the  legislature  to  a  surveillance  which,  instead 
of  making  it  a  co-ordinate  department,  would  subject  it  to 
a  dependence  on  the  others?  There  is  a  fitness  in  making 
each  department  the  sole  judge  of  the  rules  prescribed  for 
onduct;  this  is  necessary  to  render  them  co-ordinate, 
and  not  dependent  on  each  other.  .  .  .  "We  do  not 
maintain  that  the  legislature  can  prevent  a  scrutiny  into  its 

which  the  constitution  designed  should  be  made,  by 
any  mode  of  authentication  it  may  adopt.  We  have  en- 
deavored  to  show  that  the  constitution  never  contemplated 
that  objections  of  the  character  urged  against  the  law  whose 
validity  is  now  under  consideration  should  be  raised  against 
a  bill  passed  with  the  approval  of  the  governor.  There  is 
no  reason  why  objections  of  like  character  should  be  raised 
against  a  bill  passed  against  his  will.  .  .  .  Upon  the 
whole,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  objections  taken 
against  the  mode  of  passing  this  law  by  the  general  assem- 
bly on  its  reconsideration  are  untenable,  and  the  constitu- 
tion and  law  preclude  an  inquiry  as  to  the  existence  of  such 

tions;  the  constitution  regarding  the  provisions  alleged 
to  have  been  violated  in  the  passage  of  this  law  as  merely 
directory,  and,  being  so,  a  departure  from  them,  even  if 
there  was  a  departure,  would  not  render  the  law  void." 

A  later  constitutional  provision   requiring  that,  on  the 
final  passage  of  a  bill,  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and 

be  passed  upon  by  the  house,  and,  ered  by  the  governor  in  connection 

if  sustained,  the  presiding  officer  therewith." 

shall  withhold  his  signature,  but  if  The  first  clause  was  held  manda- 

siifh  objection   shall   not  be   bus-  tory,  but  the  others  directory,  ex- 

I,  then  any  five  members  may  cept  that  in  case  of  protest  they 

embody  the  same  over  their  signa-  w  re  submitted  with  the  bill  to  the 

in  a  written   protest,  under  governor,  and  to  be  considered  by 

oath,  agaii    i    the   Bigning  of  the  him,— that   this  was  the  remedy 

bill.    Said  protest,  when  offered  in  provided  by  the  constitution  for 

the  house,  shall  be  noted  upon  the  any  supposed   infraction  of  those 

journal,  and  the  original  shall  be  clauses. 
annexed  to  the  bill  to  be  consid- 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  57 

nays  and  entered  on  the  journal,  and  that  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  each  house  must  be  recorded  as  voting  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  is  held  to  be  mandatory.17 

§34(33).  Same  —  Louisiana. —  All  the  constitutions  of 
Louisiana  have  required  each  house  of  the  general  assembly 
to  keep  and  publish  weekly  a  journal  of  its  proceedings,  and 
to  enter  therein  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  members  on  any 
question  at  the  desire  of  any  two  of  them.  And  also  has 
provided  that  "  No  bill  shall  have  the  force  of  a  law  until 
on  three  several  days  it  be  read  in  each  house  of  the  general 
assembly,  and  free  discussion  be  allowed  thereon,  unless,  in 
case  of  urgency,  four-fifths  of  the  house  where  the  bill  shall 
be  depending  deem  it  expedient  to  dispense  with  this  rule." 
In  State  Lottery  Co.  v.  Eichoux,18  it  was  said  b}r  the  court: 
"When  a  legislative  act  is  duly  promulgated  according  to 
the  constitution  and  laws  under  which  it  is  passed,  we  find 
no  authority  in  the  judiciary  department  to  look  behind  it 
and  determine  its  validity  or  invalidity  from  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  general  assembly  in  adopting  it.  Such  a  course, 
it  would  seem,  is  not  sustainable  on  the  theory  of  the  inde- 
pendent and  separate  action  of  the  three  branches  of  the 
state  government.  Where  a  legislative  act  is  attacked  on 
the  ground  that  it  contains  provisions  that  are  unconstitu- 
tional, the  question  of  its  validity  is  properly  within  the 
scope  of  judicial  action.  The  courts  have  power,  when  a 
constitutional  question  is  raised,  to  examine  whether  the 
thing  ordered,  permitted  or  forbidden  to  be  done  may  have 
effect  under  the  sanction  of  the  constitution.  The  question 
should  be,  is  the  law  itself  constitutional  as  to  its  provisions 
and  what  it  declares,  and  not  whether  it  is  constitutional  as 
to  the  manner  of  its  enactment  or  the  proceedings  by  which 
it  was  enacted."  But  later  cases  sustain  the  view  that  the 
enrolled  bill  may  be  impeached  b}r  the  journals.19 

17  State  v.  Mason,  155  Mo.  486,  55  See  Whited  v.  Lewis,  25  La.  Ann. 

S.  W.  6  iC.     And  see  State  v.  Wray,  568. 

109  Mo.  594,  19  S.  W.  86;  State  v.  '9  State  v.  Laiche,  105  La.  84,  29 

Field,  119  Mo.  593,  24  S.  W.  752.  So.  700;  State  v.  Secretary  of  State, 

is  23  La.  Ann.  743,  8  Am.  Rep.  602.  43  La.  Ann.  590,  9  So.  776;  Rollings- 


1  N  \<   1  Ml  N  1'    OF    LAWS. 


35  •!  I  .  Same—  Mississippi. —  In  Mississippi  the  Bami 
subject  was  thus  discussed  in  Green  v.  Weller:30  "It  may 
be  that  legislative  acts  may  be  passed  without  a  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  constitution.  If  such  defect 
or  violation  appear  on  the  face  of  the  act,  or  by  that  which 
constitutes  the  record,  which  can  be  judicially  noticed,  the 
power  oi  the  court  to  determine  the  question  is  indispu- 
table. But  if  the  proper  record  shows  that  the  act  has  re- 
ceived the  sanctions  required  by  the  constitution  as  evidence 
of  its  having  been  passed  agreebly  to  the  constitution,  and 
its  provisions  be  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  the  regu- 
larity and  stability  of  government  and  the  peace  of  soci- 
ety require  that  it  should  have  the  force  of  a  valid  law."21 
£  :J(>  (35).  Same  —  Other  states. —  The  constitution  of 
Nevada  requires  particular  proceedings  in  the  passage  of  a 
legislative  act.  Each  house  must  keep  a  journal  of  its  own 
proceedings  which  shall  be  published;  that  "every  bill  shall 


worth  v.   Thompson,  45  La.  Ann. 

L2  So.  i,  id  Am.  St.  Rep.  820. 

Miss.  690. 
onst  1868,  art.  4,  sees.   14,  23. 
See  Swann  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268. 
A  contrary  view  was  announced  in 
Brady  v.  West,  50  Miss.  68,  but  the 
latter  case  was  expressly  overruled 
in  Ex  parte  Wren,  63  Misa  51%  538, 
56  Am.  l;ep.  82."),  in  which  the  court 
:  "The  fundamental   error  of 
any  view  which  permits  an  appeal 
to  the  journal  to  see  if  the  consti- 
tution  has  been   observed   in   the 
•  ■.-••  by  both  houses  of  their  en- 
actments,  is  the  assumed  right  of 
the  judicial  department  to  revise 
rvise  the  legislature  as  t<> 
manner  of  its  performance  of 
ated  constitutional  func- 
It  is  the  admitted  province 
of  the  courts  to  judge  and  declare 
if  an  act  of  the  Legislature  violates 
the  constitution;  but  this  duty  of 


the  courts  begins  with  the  com- 
pleted act  of  the  legislature.  It 
does  not  ante-date  it.  The  legisla- 
ture is  one  of  the  three  co-ordinate 
and  co-equal  departments  into 
which  the  powers  of  government 
are  divided  by  the  constitution, 
possessing  all  legislative  power  and 
not  subject  to  supervision  and  con- 
trol during  its  performance  of  its 
constitutional  functions,  nor  to  ju- 
dicial revision  afterward  of  the 
manner  in  which  it  obeyed  the 
constitution  its  members  are  sworn 
to  support.  From  necessity  the  ju- 
dicial department  must  judge  of 
t  he  conformity  of  legislative  acts 
to  the  constitution,  but  what  are 
legislative  acts  must  be  determined 
by  what  are  authenticated  as  such 
according  to  the  constitution/' 
pp.  533,  534  The  earlier  doctrine 
was  again  confirmed  in  Hunt  v. 
Wright,  70  Miss.  298,  11  So.  008. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  59 

be  read  by  sections  on  three  several  days  in  each  house, 
unless  in  case  of  emergency  two-thirds  of  the  house  where 
such  bill  may  be  pending  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  dis- 
pense with  this  rule;  but  the  reading  of  a  bill  by  sections 
on  its  final  passage  shall  in  no  case  be  dispensed  with,  and  the 
vote  on  the  final  passage  oj  any  bill  or  joint  resolution  shall 
be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  to  be  entered  on  the  journals  of 
each  house ;  and  a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to 
each  house  shall  be  necessary  to  pass  every  bill  or  joint 
resolution;  and  all  bills  or  joint  resolutions  so  passed  shall 
be  signed  by  the  presiding  officers  of  the  respective  houses, 
and  by  the  secretary  of  the  senate  and  clerk  of  the  assem- 
bly."2^ It  is  there  held  that  the  court,  for  the  purpose  of 
informing  itself  of  the  existence  and  terms  of  a  law,  cannot 
look  beyond  the  enrolled  act  certified  by  these  officers  who 
are  charged  by  the  constitution  with  the  duty  of  certifying 
and  with  the  duty  of  deciding  what  laws  have  been  enacted.23 
Like  rulings  have  been  made  under  similar  constitutional 
provisions   in   Pennsylvania,24  Iowa,25  New   Jersey,26  Cali- 

22  Art.  4,  sec.  18.  sign  the  bill  as  finally  engrossed 

2»  State  v.  Swift,  10  Nev.  176,21  and  passed.     It  is  likewise  certified 

Am.  Rep.  721;  State  v.  Glenn,  18  by  indorsement  by  the  clerk  of  the 

Nev.  39,  1  Pac.  186;  State  v.  Beck,  house  in  which  it  originated.  With 

25  Nev.  68,  56  Pac.  1008.  these  attestations  of  authenticity 

24  Const.  1873,  art.  3,  sec.  4;  art.  2,  upon  it,  it  is  then  filed  in  the  office 
sec.  12;  Commonwealth  v.  Martin,  of  the  secretary  of  state.  This  has 
107  Pa.  St.  185;  Kilgore  v.  Magee,  been  the  course  of  proceeding  from 
85  id.  412.  certainly  a  very  remote  period  to 

25  Const.  1846,  art.  3,  sees.  9,  11;  the  present  time;  under  our  pres- 
Const.  1857,  art.  3,  sees.  9,  17;  Clare  ent  constitution  the  written  ap- 
v.  State,  5  Iowa,  510;  Duncombe  v.  proval  of  the  governor  is  requisite. 
Prindle,  12  id.  1.  There  seems,  therefore,  to   be  no 

2B  Const.  1876,  art.  4.  sec.  4.  In  the  doubt  whatever  that  these  copies, 

leading  case  in  that  state  on  this  thus  authenticated  and  filed,  are  to 

subject  (Pangborn  v.  Young,  32  N.  be  regarded  as  enrolled  bills,  cor- 

J.  L.  29),  the  court  by  Beasley,  C.  responding  in  their  general  charac- 

J.,  said:  "From  the  earliest  times,  ter,  and  partaking,  if  not  in  all,  at 

so  far  as  I  am  able  to  ascertain,  it  least  in  most  respects,  of  the  na- 

has  been  the  invariable  course  of  ture  of  parliamentary  rolls.  In  the 

legislative  practice  in  this  state,  statute  book  they  are  frequently 

for  the  speaker  of  each  house  to  referred  to  as  enrolled  bills;  and  if 


I   \  \.'l  MEN  1'    OF     LAWS. 


i*  Maine,"  North  Dakota,"  North  Carolina,"  South 
ita,a  and  Now  York  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  1^!'''.:: 


we  ur"  back  to  provincial  tinii 
find  indorsed   upon  these  copies, 

with  the  executive  approval,  a  di- 
rt to  enroll  them,  which 
meant  nc >t h i n l;  more  than  to  file 
them.  These  are  the  characteris- 
tics and  nature  of  the  copies  of  leg-, 
islative  hills  deposited  according 
to  the  ordinary  routine  in  the  office 
of  the  secretary  of  state.  .  .  . 
The  principal  argument  in  favor  of 
this   judicial  appeal  from  the  en- 


rolled law  to  the  legislative  jour- 
nal, and  which  was  much  pressed 
in  the  discussion  at  the  bar,  was, 
that  the  existence  of  this  power 
was  necessary  to  keep  the  legisla- 
ture from  overstepping  the  bounds 
of  the  constitution.  The  course  of 
reasoning  urged  was  that  if  the 
court  cannot  look  at  the  facts  and 
examine  the  legislative  action,  that 
department  of  the  government 
can,  at  will,  set  at  defiance,  in  the 


2-  Yolo  County  v.  Colgan,  L32  Cal. 
1  Pac.  403,  84  Am.  St.  Rep 41, 
in  which  prior  cases  are  reviewed. 
See  Fowler  v.  Pierce,    2  Cal  165; 
Weill  v.  Kenlield,  54  Cal.  111. 
wWeeksv.Smith,81Me.538,18A.tL 
The  court  says:  "But  when 
the  original  act.  duly  certified  by 
the  presiding  officer  of  each  house 
to  have  been  properly  passed,  and 
approved  by  the  governor,  showing 
upon  its  face  no  irregularities  or 
violation  of  constitutional  methods, 
is  found  deposited  in  the  secretary's 
office,  is  the    highest  evidence  of 
the  legislative  will,  and  must    be 
considered  as  absolute  verity,  and 
cannot  be  impeached  by  any  irreg- 
ularity touching  its  passage  shown 
by    the    journal    of   either  house. 
-lit  ive  journals  are  made  amid 
the  confusion  of  a  dispatch  of  husi- 
are  therefore  much  more 
likely  to  contain   errors  than  the 
•    -  of  the  presiding  officers 
are  to  he  untrue.     Moreovi  r,  public 
•y   requires  that  the  enrolled 
statutes  of  our  state,  fair  upon  their 
faces,  Bhould  not  he  put  in  quest  ion, 


after  the  public  have  given  faith  to 
their  validity.  No  man  should  be 
required  to  hunt  through  the  jour- 
nals of  a  legislature  to  determine 
whether  a  statute,  properly  certi- 
fied by  the  speaker  of  the  house 
and  president  of  the  senate  and  ap- 
proved by  the  governor,  is  a  statute 
or  not."    p.  547. 

2;'  Territory  v.  O'Connor,  5  N.  D. 
397,  41  N.  W.  746. 

30Carr  v.  Coke,  116  N.  C.  223,  22 
S.  E.  16,  47  Am.  St  Rep.  801,  28  L. 
R.  A.  737.  But  this  is  modified  by 
later  decisions  to  the  extent  that 
what  the  constitution  expressly  re- 
quires to  be  entered  in  the  jour- 
nals must  be  so  entered  or  the  act 
will  he  invalid.  Smathers  v.  Com- 
missioners, 125  N.  C.  480,  34  S.  EL 
554;  Union  Bank  v.  Commissioners, 
119  N.  C.  214,  25  S.  E.  916,  34  L.  R. 
A.  487.     And  see  post,  § 58. 

:;1  Narregang  v.  Brown  County, 
14  S.  D.  357,  85  N.  W.  602;  State 
v.  Bacon,  14  S.  D.  394,  85  N.  W. 
C05. 

3-Art.  3,  sees.  11,  15;  People  v. 
Supervisors,  8  N.  Y.  317,  327,  328. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


01 


§  37  (06).  Same  — New  York.— Though  the  constitution 
of  New  York  provides  that  the  votes  required  on  the  pas- 
sage of  bills  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  and  entered  on 
the  journals,  it  is  nevertheless  held  that  a  certificate  made 


enactment  of  statutes,  the  re- 
straints of  the  organic  law.  This 
argument,  however  specious,  is  not 
solid."  The  answer  of  the  court, 
briefly  stated,  was  that  if  the  leg- 
islature intends  a  violation  of  the 
constitution  in  the  enactment  of  a 
statute  it  is  futile  to  rely  on  its 
journals  or  any  extrinsic  evidence 
to  show  the  irregularity.  The  jour- 
nals are  under  its  direction,  and 
not  kept  or  authenticated  in  a  man- 
ner to  weigh  as  evidence  against 
enrolled  acts.  "  In  my  estimation," 
said  the  chief  justice,  "'the  doctrine 
in  question  if  entertained  would,  as 
against  legislative  encroachments, 
be  useless  as  a  guard  to  the  consti- 
tution, and  it  certainly  would  be 
attended  with  many  evils.  Its 
practical  application  would  be  full 
of  embarrassment.  If  the  courts, 
in  order  to  test  the  validity  of  a 
statute,  are  to  draw  the  compari- 
son between  the  enrolled  copy  of 
an  act  and  the  entries  on  the  leg- 
islative journal,  how  great,  to  have 
the  effect  of  exploding  the  act, 
must  be  the  discrepancy  between 
the  two?  Will  the  omission  of 
any  provision,  no  matter  how  un- 
important, have  that  effect?  The 
difficulty  of  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  theseand  similar  interrogatories 
is  too  apparent  to  need  comment. 
And,  again,  to  notice  one  among 
the  many  practical  difficulties 
which  suggest  themselves,  what  is 
to  be  the  extent  of  the  application 
of  this  doctrine?     If  an  enrolled 


statute  of  this  state  does  not  carry 
within  itself  conclusive  evidence 
of  its  own  authenticity,  it  would 
seem  that  the  same  principle  must 
be  extended  to  the  statutes,  how- 
ever aut  hen  ticated,  of  other  states. n 
The  court  also  mentions  that  in  the 
frame  of  the  state  government 
there  are  three  coordinate 
branches,  in  all  things  equal  and 
independent,  each  in  its  sphere 
the  trusted  agent  of  the  public; 
and  it  is  arrogating  an  authority, 
not  given  to  the  judiciary,  to  in- 
quire into  the  veracity  of  the  cer- 
tificate by  which  the  legislature 
by  its  officers  authenticates  its 
enactments.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  the  power  to  certify  to 
the  public  laws  itself  has  enacted 
is  one  of  the  trusts  of  the  con- 
stitution to  the  legislature  of  the 
state.  The  decision  in  Pangborn 
v.  Young,  32  N.  J.  L.  29,  has  been 
approved  and  followed  in  later 
cases.  Standard  Underground 
Cable  Co.  v.  Attorney -General,  46 
N.  J.  Eq.  270,  19  Atl.  733,  19  Am.  St. 
Rep.  394  (Court  of  Errors  and  Ap- 
peals); Mason  v.  Cranbury,  68  N.  J. 
L.  149.  But  it  is  held  that  the  en- 
rolled act,  in  case  of  a  private,  spe- 
cial or  local  bill,  is  not  conclusive 
that  notice  of  the  intention  to  apply 
therefor  was  given  as  required  by 
the  constitution.  State  v.  Trenton, 
57  N.  J.  L.  318,  31  Atl.  223;  Attor- 
ney-General v.  Tuckerton,  67  N.  J. 
L.  120,  50  Atl.  602. 


BNA01  mi  n  i    OF    LAWS. 

pursuant  to  a  statute  by  the  secretary  of  state  on  acts  being 
deposited  in  his  offioe,  certifying  the  day,  month  and  year 
when  the  same  became  a  law,  excludes  all  resort  to  any  other 
evidence  of  its  passage,  and  makes  the  act  so  deposited  and 
certified  the  original  record  of  it,  invulnerable  under  the 
common-law  rules  applicable  to  enrolled  acts  of  parliament, 
provides  that  such  certificate  shall  be  conclusive 

evidence  Of  the  Tacts  therein  declared.34 

38  37).  Same— Indiana.— The  Indiana  constitution 
of  1SM  required  each  house  to  keep  a  journal  of  its  proceed- 
ings and  publ  ish  the  same.35  It  also  provides  that "  every  bill 
shall  be  read  by  sections,  on  three  several  days  in  each  house, 
unless,  in  case  of  emergency,  two-thirds  of  the  house  where 
such  bill  may  be  depending  shall,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  and  nays, 
deem  it  expedient  to  dispense  with  this  rule;  but  the  lead- 
ing of  a  bill  by  sections,  on  its  final  passage,  shall  in  no  case 
be  dispensed  with ;  and  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  every  bill 
or  joint  resolution  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays.1'3"  J»y  an- 
other section  it  is  declared  that  "a  majority  of  all  the  mem- 
dected  to  each  house  shall  be  necessary  to  pass  every  bill 
or  joint  resolution;  and  all  billsand  jointresolutionsso  passed 
shall  be  signed  by  the  presiding  olliccrs  of  the  respective 
houses."37  A  like  vote  after  a  veto  will  adopt  the  bill,  and 
give  it  the  force  of  law;  but  no  similar  certificate  of  the  pre- 
siding oilicors  in  that  case  is  provided  for.38  If  the  governor 
fail  for  three  days,  Sundays  excepted,  to  act  upon  a  bill  after 
itisp  ■!  to  him,  it  becomes  a  law  without  his  signature, 

unless  a  g<  neral  adjournment  prevents  its  return,  and  he  does 
not,  within  five  days  alter  the  adjournment, file  his  objections 

eto  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state.     No  verifica- 

«1  R.  S.,  p.  187,  ??  10,  11.  Thomas  v.  Dakin,  22  id.  9;  Rumsey 

]  .    j,  .    v.  Devlin.  :;:3  N.  Y.  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  130  N. 

■    An,.   Dec.  :;77:  People  Y.  88,  28  N.  E.  7G3. 

t  .  54  N.  Y.  276,  13  3S  Art.  4,  sec.  12. 

Am.  lap.  581;  Purdy  v.   People,  4  3,i  Art.  4,  sec.  18. 

Hill,   384;   People  v.    Pur.ly.    2    id.  37  Art.  4,  sec.  25. 

:;l ;  De  Bow  v.  People,  1  Denio,  14;  38  See  art.  5,  sec.  14. 
Warner  v.   Beers,  23   Wend.    135; 


ENACTMENT    OF   LAWS.  63 

tion  of  these  facts  appears  to  be  provided  for  in  the  constitu- 
tion preliminary  to  the  deposit  of  the  act  with  the  secretary 
of  state.  The  constitution  also  prohibits  the  presentation  to 
the  governor  of  any  bill  during  the  last  two  days  before  the 
final  adjournment. 

§  39  (38).  In  Evans  v.  Browne,39  the  act  appears  without 
the  governor's  approval.  It  was  accompanied,  however,  by 
a  statement  signed  by  the  governor,  and  it  may  be  inferred 
he  caused  it  to  be  filed.  In  his  statement  he  explains  that 
it  was  a  house  bill  amended  in  the  senate,  and  the  amend- 
ments concurred  in  by  the  house  the  day  after  forty-two 
members  had  resigned  by  delivering  their  resignations  to 
him  in  writing,  and  thereby  as  claimed  reducing  the  num- 
ber below  a  constitutional  quorum.  The  bill  was  certified 
by  the  presiding  officers.  It  was  held  that  where  a  statute 
is  authenticated  by  the  signature  of  the  presiding  officers 
of  the  two  houses,  the  courts  will  not  search  further  to  as- 
certain whether  such  facts  existed  as  gave  constitutional 
warrant  to  those  officers  to  thus  authenticate  the  act  as 
having  received  legislative  sanction  in  such  manner  as  to 
give  it  the  force  of  law.  The  court  says:  "  The  framers  of  our 
government  have  not  constituted  it  [the  judiciary]  with  fac- 
ulties to  supervise  co-ordinate  departments  and  correct  or 
prevent  abuses  of  their  authority.  It  cannot  authenticate  a 
statute;  that  power  does  not  belong  to  it;  nor  can  it  keep 
the  legislative  journal.  It  ascertains  the  statute  law  by 
looking  at  its  authentication,  and  then  its  function  is  merely 
to  expound  and  administer  it.  It  cannot,  we  think,  look 
beyond  that  authentication,  because  of  the  constitution  it- 
self."49 

§  40  (39).  In  Bender  v.  State,41  it  was  held  not  for  the 
court  to  look  beyond  the  enrolled  act  of  the  legislature  to 
ascertain  whether  there  had  been  a  compliance  with  the  in- 

39  30  Ind.  514,  95  Am.  Dec.  710.         40  N.  E.  1051;  State  v.   Board  of 

40  There  is  the  same  ruling  in  the    Com'rs,  140  Ind.  506,  40  N.  E.  113. 
following  cases  :     Western  Union        41  53  Ind.  254. 

Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  141  Ind.  281, 


BXA0TM1  NT   OF    LAWS. 

junction  of  the  constitution  that  "  No  bill  sliall  bo  presented 
to  the  governor  within  the  last  two  days  next  preceding  the 
final  adjournment  of  the  general  assembly." 

:l.  Same — Kentucky. —  The  subject  has  received 
careful  consideration  in  a  recent  case  in  Kentucky.  The 
court  held  that  the  enrolled  bill'signed  by  the  presiding 
officers  anil  approved  by  the  governor  was  conclusive  evi- 
■  of  its  passage  according  to  the  constitution.  The 
ning  of  the  court  is  very  persuasive  and  is  in  part  as 
follows:  "That  the  actor  successive  acts  of  some  agency 
somewhere  or  somehow  must  be  held  conclusive  is  entirely 
evident,  unless  we  open  the  doors  to  all  competent  proof, 
including  that  of  the  member  on  the  floor,  an  absurdity 
not  to  be  thought  of.  The  result  is  we  must  accept  as 
conclusive  either  the  entries  of  the  clerk  in  the  journals  or 
the  more  deliberate  acts  of  the  presiding  officers. 

"In  some  of  the  courts,  where  the  journals  are  held  to  be 
competent  evidence  to  impeach  the  enrolled  bill,  it  is  said 
that  when  those  records  are  merely  silent  the  presumption 
is  absolute  that  the  required  steps  were  in  fact  taken.  This 
seems  to  us  hardly  logical.  .  .  .  These  courts  assume 
that  the  failure  of  the  clerk  to  make  the  entry  and  in  this 
violate  the  constitution  requiring  the  entry  to  be  made  was 
an  oversight  or  mistake,  and  treat  the  entry  as  made,  sup- 
plying the  omission,  and  yet  are  not  willing  to  assume  it  to 
be  a  mistake  or  mere  misapprehension  of  the  inferior  of- 
ficer, if  an  entry  is  made,  showing  steps  taken  not  in  con- 
form itv  with  the  constitutional  requirements. 

"Even  if  resort  is  had  to  the  journals  it  would  seem  as 
consistent  to  overlook  the  sins  of  commission  by  the  clerk, 
and  treat  his  entry  showing  a  violation  of  the  constitution 
as  not  true,  as  to  overlook  his  sins  of  omission  and  supply 
the  defects  in  his  record.  To  avoid  the  necessity  of  resort- 
ing to  these  fine-spun  distinctions  we  are  convinced  that  the 
consistent  and  safe  rule  is  to  assume  that  the  legislature,  in 
obedience  to  the  constitution,  has  taken  the  steps  required 
by  that  instrument  in  the  passage  of  every  law,  attested  by 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  65 

the  signatures  of  its  presiding  officers,  the  journals  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. 

"  The  enrolled  bill,  so  attested  and  signed  and  approved 
by  the  executive,  is  easy  of  access  and  inspection,  but  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  journals  ?  At  the  session  at  which  the 
law  now  under  consideration  was  adopted  those  records 
consist  of  over  4,000  pages.  They,seem  to  have  been  hur- 
riedly and  imperfectly  indexed,  as  in  the  nature  of  things 
they  must  ever  be.  The  assiduous  lawyer  who  plods 
through  these  volumes  may  fail  to  find  the  evidence  of  an 
important  step  required  by  the  constitution  to  support  a 
statute  which  has  been  promulgated  as  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  the  court  in  this  case  declares  as  a  matter  of  fact  that 
the  prim  a  facie  law  so  promulgated  is  not,  in  fact,  the  law. 
In  an  adjoining  circuit  the  court  is  more  fortunate,  and  the 
missing  step  is  found,  or  the  erroneous  entry  is  found  cor- 
rected elsewhere  in  the  record.  So  the  law  is  upheld,  and 
this  confusing  result  will  be  reached,  not  because  the  law 
depends  upon  the  testimony  or  the  pleadings  in  any  given 
case,  for  the  courts  must  take  judicial  notice  of  the  jour- 
nals, if  they  are  controlling,  as  well  as  of  the  signatures  of 
the  presiding  officers,  if  these  are  to  be  held  conclusive;  but 
the  confusion  comes  from  the  nature  of  the  record  to  be  in- 
spected. This  is  usually  prepared  by  the  subordinate  offi- 
cers hurriedly,  amidst  the  excitement  and  confusion  incident 
to  legislative  bodies,  and  with  small  concern  for  those  de- 
tails which  are  to  become  so  important  if  the  record  is  to 
be  subjected  to  judicial  scrutiny. 

"  But  it  is  said,  since  the  constitution  requires  the  jour- 
nals to  be  kept,  it  must  be  because  they  are  to  be  used  as 
evidence  of  legislative  compliance  or  non-compliance  with 
the  constitutional  requirements.  We  can  see,  however, 
much  use  for  these  journals  other  than  the  one  suggested. 
Besides  being  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  the  business,  it 
is  to  be  remembered  that  our  government  is  a  representa- 
tive one,  and  the  journals  show  the  respective  parts  borne 
by  each  representative  in  the  enactment  of  the  laws  and  the 


K.N  A>    !  Ml   \  I     OF     LAWS. 

conduot  of  the  public  business.  Responsibility  cannot  bo 
shifted  or  made  to  rest  upon  the  body  as  a  whole.  We 
know  that  the  enrollment  of  bills  receives  careful  attention 
at  the  hands  of  special  committees  for  that  purpose.    It  is 

the  final  act  of  the  body,  the  climax  of  the  work  before  the 
finishing  hand  of  the  presiding  officer  sets  his  approval 
to.  It  receives  and  merits  attention  for  that  reason, 
and  there  is  small  room  for  imposition  or  fraud.  The  en- 
1  act  is  well  nigh  necessarily  the  very  act  passed  by 
the  body,  but  the  chances  of  mistake  are  very  great  in  the 
make-up  of  the  journals,  as  they  are  ordinarily  kept,  and  if 
it  be  understood  that  the  enrolled  bill  may  be  impeached 
by  them  the  chances  of  fraud  are  likewise  great.  They  are 
usually  read  from  loose  sheets  or  hurriedly  made  memo- 
randa, and  are  approved  with  slight  attention,  and  then 
passed  to  the  journal  clerk  or  some  copyist,  to  be  transcribed 
formally  in  the  journal.  They  receive  usually  no  further 
consideration  at  the  hands  of  the  body."42 

§42.  Same  —  Texas,  Washington,  South  Carolina. — 
The  same  ruling  has  been  made  in  each  of  these  states.  The 
Texas  supreme  court  says:  "  Our  constitution  provides  that, 
after  the  passage  of  a  bill,  it  shall  be  signed  by  the  presiding 
ollicer  of  each  house  in  presence  of  the  house;  and  we  are 
of  opinion  that  when  a  bill  has  been  so  signed,  and  has  been 
submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  governor,  it  was  in- 
tended that  it  should  afford  conclusive  evidence  that  the  act 
had  been  passed  in  the  manner  required  by  the  constitution. 
Such  being  the  rule  of  the  common  law,  we  think,  in  the 
absence  of  something  in  the  constitution  expressly  showing 
.irary  intention,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  same 

«Lafferty  v.  Huffman,  99  Ky.  monwealth  v.  Shelton,  99  Ky.  120, 

S.  \Y.   128,  :52  U  11  A.   203.  35  S.   W.  128;    Commonwealth  v. 

In  this  case  the  journals  failed  to  Hardin  Co.  Ct,  99  Ky.  188,  35  S.  W. 

the   necessary  vote  on   the  275;  Wilson  v.  Hines,  99  Ky.  221, 

final  passage  of  the  bill,  which  the  35  S.  W.  627,  37  S.  W.  148.     Com- 

:ution  required  to  be  entered  pare  Norman  v.  Kentucky  Board  of 

therein.     There  is  the  same  hold-  Managers,  93  Ky.  537,  20  S.  W.  901, 

ing  in  the  following  cases:  Com-  18  L.  R.  A.  556. 


ENACTMENT   OF    LAWS.  67 

rule  should  prevail  in  this  state.  There  is  no  provision  in 
the  constitution  indicating  in  any  direct  manner  such  con- 
trary intention;  and  the  fact  that  it  is  provided  that  jour- 
nals shall  be  kept  and  that  certain  things  should  be  entered 
therein  we  think  insufficient  to  show  any  such  purpose."43 
In  State  v.  Jones  M  it  is  said :  "  Each  of  the  three  depart- 
ments into  which  the  government  is  divided  are  equal,  and 
each  department  should  be  held  responsible  to  the  people  it 
represents,  and  not  to  the  other  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment, or  either  of  them.  ...  To  preserve  the  harmony 
of  our  form  of  government  it  must  be  held  that  these  sev- 
eral mandatory  provisions  are  addressed  to  the  department 
which  is  called  upon  to  perform  them,  and  that  neither  of 
the  other  departments  can  in  any  manner  coerce  that  de- 
partment into  obedience  thereto.  Courts  have  gone  behind 
the  final  records  of  the  legislative  department  upon  what 
seems  to  us  a  false  theory.  They  have  assumed  that  the 
mandatory  provisions  of  the  constitution  are  safer,  if  the  en- 
forcement thereof  is  intrusted  to  the  judicial  department, 

«  Williams  v.  Taylor,  83  Tex.  667,  judgment  in  the  premises,— the 
672,  19  S.  W.  156.  In  this  case  the  judgment  will  be  held  void  in  any 
court  further  says:  "Itwouldseem  suit  in  which  its  validity  may  be 
upon  first  blush  that  there  should  involved.  But  if  the  court  have 
be  a  broad  distinction  between  the  jurisdiction  no  other  court  would 
authority  to  declare  an  act  of  the  have  power  in  any  collateral  pro- 
legislature  void  for  the  want  of  ceeding  to  revise  its  judgment,  how- 
power  to  pass  the  law  in  any  man-  ever  irregular  its  proceedings  may 
ner,  and  the  jurisdiction  to  annul  have  been.  Much  stronger  reasons 
a  statute  upon  the  ground  that  exist  why  we  should  hesitate  to 
some  provision  of  the  constitution  annul  the  action  of  the  legislature 
as  to  the  mode  of  its  passage  has  upon  grounds  of  irregularity  in  its 
not  been  observed.  The  same  dis-  procedure  than  exist  when  we  are 
tinction  exists  with  reference  to  asked  to  declare  void  the  judgment 
the  judgments  of  the  courts  them-  of  a  court."  p.  671.  For  prior  cases 
selves.  If,  when  the  validity  of  a  see  Blessing  v.  Galveston,  42  Tex. 
judgment  is  called  in  question.it  641;  Houston,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
appear  that  the  court  was  without  Odum,  53  Tex.  343. 
jurisdiction  — that  is  to  say,  that  it  44  6  Wash.  452,  461-463,  34  Pac. 
had  no  power  to  hear  and  deter-  201,  23  L.  R.  A.  340. 
mine  the  case  and  to  render  any 


68  ENACTMENT  OF    laws. 

than  If  so  intrusted  to  the  legislature;  mother  words,  they 
have  acted  upon  the  presumption  that  their  department  La 
the  only  one  in  which  sufficient  integrity  exists  to  insure 
rvation  of  the  constitution.  Bow  the  courts  have 
obtained  this  idea  is  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain,  but 
that  they  entertain  it,  and  have  allowed  ii  to  influence  their 
5,  is  si)  .vidcnt  that  even  a  superficial  examination 
of  such  decisions  will  satisfy  any  one  of  the  fact." 

The  earlier  cases  in  South  Carolina  supporte  1  the  contrary 
doctrine,48  but  these  were  overruled  in  State  v.  Chester,46 
wherein  the  court  says:  "We  announce  that  the  true  rule 
is,  that  when  an  act  lias  been  duly  signed  by  the  presiding 
ers  of  the  general  assembly,  in  open  session  in  the  sen- 
ate-house,  approved  by  the  governor  of  the  state;,  and  duly 
deposited  in  the  ollice  of  the  secretary  of  state,  it  is  suffi- 
cient e  vide  nee,  nothing  to  the  contrary  appearing  on  its  face, 
that  it  passed  the  general  assembly,  and  that  it  is  not  com- 
petent either  by  the  journals  of  the  two  houses,  or  either  of 
them,  or  by  any  other  evidence,  to  impeach  such  an  act. 
And  this  being  so,  it  follows  that  the  court  is  not  at  liberty 
to  inquire  into  what  the  journals  of  the  two  houses  may 
show  as  to  the  successive  steps  which  may  have  been  taken 
in  the  passage  of  the  original  bill." 

!:>.  Same  —  United  States  supreme  court. —  In  Field 
i  rk,47  the  claim  was  made  that  an  act  of  congress  never 
became  a  law,  for  the  reason  that  the  journals  showed  that, 
as  it  passed  the  houses,  it  contained  a  section  not  found  in 
the  en  lolled  bill.  The  bill,  however,  was  duly  certified  by 
the  presiding  officers  of  the  two  houses,  approved  by  the 
lent  and  deposited  with  the  secretary  of  state.  The 
court  held  that  this  enrolled  bill  was  conclusive  evidence  of 
its  passage  in  the  form  in  which  it  there  appeared.  "We 
quote  from  the  opinion  as  follows:      "As  the  president  has 

«8t»te  v.   Piatt,  2  S.  C.    150,  10  <«39  S.  C.  307,  17  So.  752. 

Am.  Rep.  647;  state  v.  Hagood,  13  4T  1 13  I '.  s.  649,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  495, 

v.   Smalls,  11   S.   C.  36  L  J    1.294. 
202;  Bond  Debt  Cases,  12  S.  C.  200. 


ENACTMENT   OF   LAWS.  6i> 

no  authority  to  approve  a  bill  not  passed  by  congress,  an  en- 
rolled act  in  the  custody  of  the  secretary  of  state,  and  hav- 
ing the  official  attestations  of  the  speaker  of  the  house  of 
representatives,  of  the  president  of  the  senate,  and  of  the 
president  of  the  United  States,  carries  on  its  face  a  solemn 
assurance  by  the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of 
the  government,  charged,  respectively,  with  the  duty  of  en- 
acting and  executing  the  laws,  that  it  was  passed  by  con- 
gress. The  respect  due  to  coequals  and  independents  re- 
quires the  judicial  department  to  act  upon  that  assurance, 
and  to  accept,  as  having  passed  congress,  all  bills  authenti- 
cated in  the  manner  stated ;  leaving  the  courts  to  determine, 
when  the  question  properly  arises,  whether  the  act,  so  au- 
thenticated, is  in  conformity  with  the  constitution.     . 

"  It  is  admitted  that  an  enrolled  act,  thus  authenticated,  is 
sufficient  evidence  of  itself  —  nothing  to  the  contrary  ap- 
pearing upon  its  face  —  that  it  passed  congress.  But  the 
contention  is,  that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  law  of  the 
United  States  if  the  journal  of  either  house  fails  to  show 
that  it  passed  in  the  precise  form  in  which  it  was  signed  by 
the  presiding  officers  of  the  two  houses,  and  approved  by 
the  president.  It  is  said  that,  under  any  other  view,  it  be- 
comes possible  for  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  representa- 
tives and  the  president  of  the  senate  to  impose  upon  the 
people  as  a  law  a  bill  that  was  never  passed  by  congress. 
But  this  possibility  is  too  remote  to  be  considered  in  the 
-present  inquiry.  It  suggests  a  deliberate  conspiracy  to 
which  the  presiding  officers,  the  committees  on  enrolled 
bills  and  the  clerks  of  the  two  houses  must  necessarily  be 
parties,  all  acting  with  a  common  purpose  to  defeat  an  ex- 
pression of  the  popular  will  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the 
constitution.  Judicial  action  based  upon  such  a  suggestion 
is  forbidden  by  the  respect  due  to  a  co-ordinate  branch  of 
the  government.  The  evils  that  may  result  from  the  rec- 
ognition of  the  principle  that  an  enrolled  act,  in  the  custody 
of  the  secretary  of  state,  attested  by  the  signatures  of  the 
presiding  officers  of  the  two  houses  of  congress,  and  the  ap- 


7(1  1  N.U    1  Ml'.N  1'    OF     LAWS. 

proval  of  the  president,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  it  was 
passed  by  congress,  according  to  the  forms  of  the  constitu- 
tion, would  be  far  less  than  those  that  would  certainly  re- 
sult from  the  rule  making  the  validity  of  congressional  en- 
actments depend  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  journals  of 
the  respective  houses  are  kept  by  the  subordinate  officers 
charged  with  the  duly  of  keeping  them/'48 

It  (41).  Courts  holding  enrolled  act  not  conclusive  — 
Constitntional  provisions  as  to  procedure  mandatory. — 
The  authority  of  the  organic  law'  is  universally  acknowl- 
ed;  it  speaks  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people.  The 
sovereign  power  of  the  state  being  inherently  in  them,  their 
injunctions  in  the  constitution  regarding  the  process  of 
legislation  are  as  authoritative  as  are  those  touching  the  sub- 
of  it.  If  the  former  are  treated  as  directory  to  the 
legislature,  acts  passed  in  violation  of  them,  either  by  inten- 
tion, inadvei  snee,  or  erroneous  construction,  are  neverthe- 
less valid:  and  the  same  would  be  true  of  like  violations  of 
the  constitution  in  respect  to  the  substance  of  legislation. 
The  law  has  always  been  recognized  as  clear  and  indispu- 
table, and  has  been  settled  without  dissent,  that  acts  which 

*8  This  ruling  has  been  followed  in  the  mode  required  by  law,  and  to 

in   later  cases.     Lyons   v.   "Woods,  be  unimpeachable  by  the  recitals, 

153  I".  S.  649,   14  S.  C.  Rep.  95'.),  38  or    omission     of    recitals,    in    the 

I..  Ed.  854;  Harwood  v.  Went  worth,  journals  of  legislative  proceedings 

162  U.S.  547,16  8.  C.   Rep.  890,40  which   are    not    required   by    the 

L.  Ed.  10G9.     In  the  latter  case  the  fundamental  law  of  the  territory 

court  says:  "We  see  no  reason  to  to  be  so  kept  as  to  show  everything 

modify   the  principles  announced  done  in  both  branches  of  the  legis- 

in   Field   v.  Clark,  and,  therefore,  lature  while  engaged  in  the  consid- 

hold  that,  having  been  officially  at-  eration  of  bills  presented  for  their 

i  l  by  the  presiding  officers  of  action."      And    see    Comstock    v. 

I  council  and  house  of  Tracy,  46  Fed.  162;  Gardner  v.  Col- 

:  ,!...-.     having   been   ap-  lector,  6  Wall.  499,  18  L.  Ed.  890; 

proved  by  the  governor,  and  hav«  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S. 

B  been  committed  to  the  custody  260,24  L.   Ed.  154;  Post  v.  Super- 

the secretary  of  the  territory,  as  visors.   105  U.   S.   007;  San   Mateo 

an  act  passed  bythe  territorial  leg-  County  v.  Railroad  Co.,  8  Sawyer, 

ture,  the  act  of  March  21.  1895,  288. 

ie  taken  to  have  been  enacted 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  71 

are  unconstitutional  on  their  face  are  nullities.  And  it  was 
settled  early  in  our  constitutional  jurisprudence  that  it  was 
the  peculiar  function  and  duty  of  the  judiciary  to  pronounce 
on  their  validity.  In  the  exercise  of  this  function  the 
judiciary  does  not  trench  on  the  domain  of  the  legislative 
department,  though  it  pronounces  judgment  on  its  official 
work.  The  courts  are  bound  by  statutes  when  they  are 
constitutional,  but  when  otherwise  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
courts  to  treat  them  as  void.  Acts  which  contravene  any 
provision  of  the  constitution  in  their  substance  are  invalid 
though  the  constitution  has  not  declared  that  consequence. 
The  function  of  the  courts  is  the  same  to  determine  the  va- 
lidity of  acts  questioned  on  the  ground  of  having  been 
passed  by  a  proceeding  not  in  accordance  with  the  proced- 
ure prescribed  in  the  constitution.  In  a  large  majority  of 
the  states  in  which  the  question  has  arisen,  the  courts  have 
held  constitutional  provisions  in  reference  to  parliamentary 
procedure  in  legislation  to  be  mandatory,  and  against  per- 
mitting any  careless  or  dishonest  officer's  certificate  or  use 
of  the  great  seal,  or  filing  for  record  of  documents  having 
the  form  of  legislative  acts,  to  give  the  force  of  law  to  such 
acts,  if  they  have  not  been  constitutionally  enacted.  These 
courts  unite  in  holding  that  a  valid  statute  can  be  passed 
only  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  constitution;  and 
when  the  provisions  of  that  instrument  in  regard  to  the 
manner  of  enacting  laws  are  disregarded  in  respect  to  a 
particular  act,  it  will  be  declared  a  nullity  though  having 
the  forms  of  authenticity.49    The  foregoing  remains  as  writ- 

*9  Alabama:   Jones   v.   Hutchin-  Arkansas:  Burr  v.  Eoss,  19  Ark. 

son,  43  Ala.  721;  Moody  v.  State,  48  250;  Vinsant  v.  Knox,  27  Ark.  266; 

Ala.  115,  17  Am.  Rep.  28;  State  v.  State  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

Buckley,  54  Ala  599;  Dane  v.  Mc-  31    Ark.    701;     Worthen     County 

Arthur,  57  Ala.  454;  Perry  County  Clerk    v.    Badgett,    32    Ark.    4')6; 

v.  Railroad  Co.,  58  Ala.  546;  Moog  Smithee  v.  Garth.  33  Ark.  17;  State 

v.  Randolph,  77  Ala.  597;  Sayre  v.  v.  Crawford,  35  Ark.  237;  Smithee 

Pollard,  77  Ala.  608;  Stein  v.  Lee-  v.  Campbell,  41  Ark.  471;  Webster 

per,  78  Ala.  517;  Robertson  v.  State,  v.  Little  Rock,  44  Ark.  536;  State 

130  Ala.  164,  30  So.  494.  v.  Corbett,  61  Ark.  226,  32  S.  W.  686. 


72  IN  Ari'Mi'N  [    OF    I.  LW8. 

ten  in  tbe  first  edition.  It  is  no  longer  true  that  "  in  a  large 
majority  of  the  Btates"the  courts  haw  held  that  the  en- 
rolled act  may  be  impeached  by  a  resort  to  the  journals.  A 
comparison  will  show  that  the  courts  arc  now  about  equally 
divided  on  the  question.     The  current  of  judicial  decision 


rado:  In  re  Roberts.  5  Colo. 

r»35;  Robertson  v.  People,  20  Colo. 

18  Pac.  826.    See  In  re  General 

Appropriation  Bill,  16  Colo.  539,  29 

Far.  379. 

Florida:  State  v.  Green,  86  Fla. 
164,  18  So.  884;  State  v.  Hocker.  36 
Fla.  858,  18  So  767. 

Illinois:  Spangler  v.  Jacoby,  14 
111.  279,  58  Am.  Dec.  571;  People  v. 
5  111.  121;  People  v.  De 
Wolf,  82  111.  258;  Ryan  v.  Lynch, 
68  111.  160;  Miller  v.  Goodwin,  70 
111.  659;  Illinois  Central  R.  R  Co. 
v.  People,  143  111.  434,  33  N.  E.  133, 
19  L  R  A.  119;  People  v.  Knopf, 
198  111.  840,  64  X.  EL  1127. 

Kansas:  state  v.  Francis.  26  Kan. 

724;  Homzighausen  v.  Knoche,  58 

Kan.  6    I,  50  Pac.  879;  State  v.  Ad- 

64  Kan.  47-1.  67  Pac.  870. 

Maryland'.    Berry  v.  Baltimore, 

etc.  R.  R  Co..  41  Md.  446,  20  Am. 

09:  Leg?  v.  Mayor,  42  Md.  203. 

Michigan:    Green    v.   Graves,    1 

;  People  v.  Mabaney,  13 

Mich.    481;     Attorney-General     v. 

55  Mich.  94;  Sackriderv.  Board 

of  Supervisors,  79  Mich.  59,  44  N. 

W.  165;  People  v.  Burch,  84   Mich. 

17  X.  W.  70.",;  Fillmore  v.  Van 

Born,  129  Mich.  52,  88  X.  W.  69. 

Minn  tsota:  Board  of  Supervisors 

v.    1 1. •.■nan.    2   Minn  t<-    v. 

24  Minn,  78;  Burt  v.  Wi- 

i,  etc.  R  R  Co..  31  Minn.  472, 

Palmer  v.  Xum- 

l.rota,  72   Minn.  266,   75   X.  W. 

Mieeen  v.  Canfield,  64  Minn.  513,  67 


X.  W.   682;    Kelley  v.   Gallup,   67 
Minn.  169,  69  X.  W.  812. 

2V<  braska:  state  v.  McLelland.  18 
Neb.  236;  In  ro  Granger,  56  Neb. 
260,  76  N.  W.  588;  State  v.  Abbott, 
59  Neb.  106,  80  X.  W.  499;  Webster 
v.  Hastings,  59  Neb.  568,  81  N.  W. 
510;  State  v.  Burlington,  etc.  R  R. 
(  o..  60  Neb.  741,  8 1  N.  \V.  25 1 ;  State 
v.  Fremont,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  60  Neb. 
749,  84  X.  W.  257;  State  v.  Frank, 
.  X.  W.  74;  State  v. 
Frank,  61  Neb.  679,  85  N.  W.  956. 

y<  ir  J  in,,-.  >8hire:  Opinion  of  Jus- 
tices, 35  X.  J  I.  579;  Opinion  ot  Jus- 
tices, 52  X.  II.  CJJ. 

Ohio:  Fordyce  v.  Goodman,  20 
Ohio  St.  1;  State  v.  Price,  8  Ohio 
C.  C.  25.  And  see  State  v.  Smith, 
44  Ohio  St.  348,  7  N.  E.  447;  State 
v.  Kiesewetter,  45  Ohio  St.  254,  12 
N.  E. 

Oregon:  Currie  v.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  21  Ore.  566,  28  Pac.  884;  State 
v.  Rogers,  22  Ore.  348,  30  Pac.  71; 
McKinnon  v.  Cotner,  30  Ore.  588, 
49  Pac.  956.  But  after  lapse  of  ten 
years  the  court  refuses  to  go  back 
of  the  enrolled  act.  Mitchell  v. 
Campbell,  19  Ore.  198,  24  Pac.  455. 

Tennessee:  Memphis  F.  Co.  v. 
Mayor,  4  Cold.  419;  Gaines  v.  Hor- 
rigan,  4  Lea, 608;  Williams  v.  State, 
6  Lea,  549;  Trading  Stamp  Co.  v. 
Memphis,  101  Tenn.  181,  47  S.  W. 
186;  Brewer  v.  Huntingdon,  86 
Tenn.  732,  9  S.  W.  166;  Nelson  v. 
Haywood  County,  91  Tenn.  596,  20 
S.  W.  1. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


73 


in  the  last  ten  years  has  been  strongly  against  the  right  of 
the  courts  to  go  back  of  the  enrolled  act.  Undoubtedly  the 
decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  in  Field 
v.  Clark  50  has  had  much  to  do  in  creating  and  augmenting 
this  current,  but  it  may  also  be  due  to  the  greater  simplicity, 
certainty  and  reasonableness  of  the  doctrine,  which  holds 
the  enrolled  act  to  be  conclusive.  Many  courts  and  judges, 
while  feeling  compelled  to  follow  former  decisions  holding 
that  the  enrolled  act  may  be  impeached  by  the  journals, 
have  done  so  reluctantly  and  have  expressed  doubts  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  doctrine,51  and  in  many  cases,  as  will  appear  in 
the  following  sections,  have  qualified  and  restricted  it  in 
important  particulars. 

§  15  (42).  Legislative  journals  as  evidence. —  The  sub- 
ject of  proof  has  been  a  prominent  one  in  the  discussion  of 


Utah:  Lyman  v.  Martin,  2  Utah, 
136;  Ritchie  v.  Richards,  14  Utah, 
345,  47  Pac.  670. 

Virginia:  Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va. 
369. 

West  Virginia:  Osburn  v.  Staley, 
5  W.  Va.  85, 13  Am.  Rep.  640;  Price 
v.  Moundsville,  43  W.  Va.  523,  27 
S.  E.  218,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  878. 

Wisconsin:  Meracle  v.  Down,  64 
Wis.  323,  25  N.  W.  412;  McDonald 
v.  State,  80  Wis.  407,  50  N.  W.  185; 
In  re  Ryan,  80  Wis.  414,  50  N.  W. 
187;  Milwaukee  County  v.  Isenring, 
109  Wis.  9,  85  N.  W.  131,  53  L.  R 
A.  635. 

Wyoming:  Brown  v.  Nash,  1  Wyo. 
85;  State  v.  Swan,  7  Wyo.  166,  51 
Pac.  209,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  889. 

Additional  cases  from  some  of 
the  states  in  the  foregoing  list  will 
be  found  cited  in  the  following 
sections. 

5°  143  U.  S.  649,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  495, 
36  L.  Ed.  294. 

si  People  v.  Starne,  35  111.  121; 
State  v.  Andrews,  64  Kan.  474,  67 


Pac.  870;  Webster  v.  Hastings,  56 
Neb.  669,  77  N.  W.  127;  State  v. 
Frank,  60  Neb.  327,  83  N.  W.  74; 
S.  C,  61  Neb.  679,  85  N.  W.  956.  In 
the  Illinois  case  the  court  says: 
"  We  are  not,  however,  prepared  to 
say  that  a  different  rule  might  not 
have  subserved  the  public  interest 
equally  well,  leaving  the  legisla- 
ture and  the  executive  to  guard 
the  public  interest  in  this  regard, 
or  to  become  responsible  for  its 
neglect."  p.  lo6.  In  State  v.  Moore, 
37  Neb.  13,  55  N.  W.  299,  occurs  the 
following:  "Were  the  question  a 
new  one  in  this  state,  we  would 
say  that  a  bill  duly  deposited  in 
the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state, 
bearing  the  signatures  of  the  pre- 
siding officers  of  the  respective 
houses  of  the  legislature  and  of  the 
governor,  imports  absolute  verity, 
and  that  the  courts  could  not  look 
beyond  the  signatures  of  these  offi- 
cers to  ascertain  what  either  house 
has  done  as  to  any  items  in  said 
bill."    p.  15. 


7  I  i  \  \ei  mi  \  i    OF    LAWS. 

tlic  constitutional  pro\  isions  relative  to  legislative  procedure. 
The  inconvenience,  and  sometimes  great  hardship,  to  the 
public  resulting  from  allowing  records  and  published  stat- 
utes to  be,  at  any  time,  modified  or  avoided  by  extrinsio 
evidence  lias  been  the  principal  cause  of  the  diversity  of 
judicial  opinion  which  exists  on  this  subject.  The  tendency, 
however,  of  the  law's  growth  is  to  preserve  the  supremacy 
constitutional  authority,  leaving  it  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
legislature   to   mitigate   any    incidental   inconvenience  by 
closer  observance  of  the  prescribed   procedure,  and  more 
diligent  attention  to  the  making  and  preservation  of  a  pub- 
lic record  of  the  essentials.    The  cases  cited  in  the  preceding 
ion  hold  the  constitutional  injunctions  imperative;  and 
as  the  constitutions  require  the  keeping  and  publication  of 
journals,  these  are  treated  as  sources  of  informa- 
tion to  be  relied  on  by  the  courts  as  well  as  the  public.     In 
Fordyce  v.  Godman,82  the  court  says  "if  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  requisite  vote  were  not  given  on  the  passage  of  a, 
bill,  and  the  evidence  were  rejected  because   the  bill  was 
properly  authenticated,  the  court  would,  in  effect,  hold  that 
a  single  presiding  officer  might,  by  his  signature,  give  the 
force  of   law  to  a  bill  which  the  journal  of  the  body  over 
which  he  presides  and  which  was  kept  under  the  supervis- 
ion of  the  whole  body  showed  not  to  have  been  voted  for 
by  the  constitutional  number  of  members."     The  court  con- 
cluded that  "  the  plain  provisions  of  the  constitution  are 
not  to  be  thus  nullified,  and  the  evidence  which  it  requires 
to  be  kept  under  the  supervision  of  the  collective  body 
must  control  when  a  question  arises  as  to  the  due  passage 

of  a  bill.5 

§  40.  Inreliability  of  the  journals.— There  is  necessa- 
rily a  substantial  similarity  in  the  manner  in  which  the  orig- 

50  Ohio  St  1.  l<i"s.  04  U.    R.  260,24  L.  Ed.   154; 

m  Berliner  v.  Town  of  W..  14  Wis.  Osburn    v.    Staley,   5   W.   Va.    86; 

ind  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  45  Wis.  Berry  v.    Baltimore,  eta  R.  R.  Co., 

racle  v.  Down,  64  Wis.  828,  !1   Md.  I  :<l.  20  Am.  Rep.  69;  Legg 

.  W.  412;  South  Ottowa  v.  Per-  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  42  Md.  203. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  T5 

inal  material  for  legislative  journals  is  made  up.  As  business 
progresses  in  the  legislative  body,  the  secretary  or  clerk 
takes  down  memoranda  of  what  is  transacted.  His  work  is 
facilitated  by  the  use  of  printed  or  stencil  forms,  printed 
lists  of  members,  for  use  on  roll  call,  and  the  like.  These 
memoranda,  partly  printed  and  partly  written,  together 
with  messages,  original  bills,  reports  of  committees  and 
other  documents,  all  on  loose  sheets  of  paper,  are  the  orig- 
inal material  for  the  journal.  The  memoranda  are  neces- 
sarily hastily  made  and  often  in  the  midst  of  much  confu- 
sion and  excitement.  Sometimes  these  original  memoranda 
and  documents  are  loosely  fastened  together,  and  constitute 
the  journal  to  which  the  courts  resort  in  order  to  determine 
whether  an  enrolled  bill  has  been  duly  passed.54  Sometimes 
these  memoranda  are  copied  into  a  book  which  becomes  the 
authoritative  journal  by  which  the  existence  of  legislative 
acts  is  tried.55  In  all  cases  the  journals  are  printed,  some- 
times from  the  original  memoranda  and  sometimes  from  a 
copy  especially  made  for  that  purpose.  Sometimes  there  are 
thus  preserved  three  journals,  as  it  were:  the  original  mem- 
oranda and  documents,  the  written  and  printed  journal,  and 
sometimes  these  all  differ  each  from  the  others.56  Some- 
times the  journals  are  read  and  approved,  and  sometimes 
their  reading  is  dispensed  with,  even  for  the  whole  session.57 
The  unsatisfactory  nature  of  this  evidence  is  frequently 
pointed  out  not  only  by  the  courts  which  refuse  to  resort  to 
it,  but  also  by  the  courts  which  do. 

54  In  re  Roberts,  5  Colo.  525;  State  ten  reports,  messages  and  voting 

v.  Frank,  60  Neb.  327,  83  N.  W.  74;  lists  or  roll-calls  of  the  houses,  and 

S.  C,  61  Neb.  679,  85  N.  W.  956.     In  with  many  abbreviations  of  words 

the  first  case  the  court  refers  to  the  phrases  and  recitals."    p.  530. 

journals  as  follows:  '•  They  are  the  55  Montgomery     Beer     Bottling 

original  sheets  of  the  clerk  upon  Works  v.  Gaston,  126  Ala.  425,  28 

which  minutes  or  memoranda  of  .  So.  497,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  42. 

the  daily  proceedings  of  the  body  5K  Homzighausen   v.  Knoche,  5S 

are  set  down  in  the  order  of  their  Kan.  646,  50  Pac.  879. 

occurrence,  partly  in  ink  and  partly  5"  People  v.  Burch,  84  Mich.  408,. 

in  pencil,  and  in  which  are  pasted  47  N.  W.  705. 
the  partly  printed  and  partly  writ- 


1    \  Ai    I  Ml    N  l     OF     LAW.-. 

supreme  court  of  Washington  in  commenting  on  this 
Bubject  Bays:  "  CTnder  the  practice  prevailing  in  the  legisla- 
ture of  this  state,  and  in  mosl  of  the  other  states,  there  is 
very  little  assurance  that  the  journal  will  fully  and  accu- 
rately show  the  proceedings  of  the  body  for  which  it  is  kept. 
The  praotioe  in  nearly  all  such  bodies  is  to  have  the  jour- 
nal read,  if  read  at  all,  from  loose  slips  of  paper  made  up 
partly  in  writing  and  partly  by  pasted  slips,  and,  after  being 
thus  read,  ordered  approved.  It  is  also  a  fact  of  which 
every  one  has  knowledge,  that  of  ten  upon  such  reading  there 
is  such  inattention  on  the  part  of  members  of  the  legislature 
that  gross  errors  might  pass  unnoticed.  The  journal  as  thus 
read  and  approved  from  loose  slips  of  paper  is  then  passed 
to  the  journal  clerk,  and  by  him,  or  under  his  direction, 
transcribed  into  a  book,  and  the  slips  then  carelessly  pre- 
yed or  entirely  destroyed.  The  transcription  of  these 
minutes,  without  any  further  action  on  the  part  of  the  legis- 
lature, or  of  any  person  but  the  one  who  makes  it,  except 
superficial  examination  by  the  journal  clerk  and  possibly  by 
the  presiding  officer,  becomes  the  formal  journal.  It  follows 
that  the  chances  of  mistake  are  very  great,  and  for  fraud 
on  the  part  of  the  copyist  even  greater."  58 

The  Nebraska  supreme  court  thus  refers  to  the  journals 
in  question  in  the  case:  "  In  this  case  we  have  made  a  very 
careful  examination  of  the  journal  of  the  house.  For  so 
important  a  public  record,  it  is,  we  must  say,  strangely 
fashioned  —  wonderfully  made.  It  consists  of  loose  sheets 
of  paper  bound  together  with  a  frayed  and  fragile  twine. 
The  vote  on  roll  call  is  shown  by  attaching  with  a  pin  or 
mucilage  a  printed  list  of  the  members  voting  yea  and  nay, 
to  a  piece  of  paper  showing  the  question  upon  which  the 
vote  was  taken.  The  sheet  containing  the  record  of  the 
vote  on  House  Roll  251,  the  bill  here  in  question,  indicates 
that  some  other  paper  was  once  fastened  to  it  with  a  pin. 
The  other  paper,  which,  according  to  the  evidence,  showed 
the  yea  and  nay  vote,  is  gone;  the  pin  has  disappeared,  and 

«  State  v.  Jones,  6  Wash.  132.  34  Pac.  201,  23  L.  R.  A.  34a 


ENACTMENT    OF   LAWS.  77 

counsel  for  respondent  insist  that  the  law  has  gone  with 
it."  59 

And  the  supreme  court  of  Kansas,  though  holding  that 
an  enrolled  act  may  be  impeached  by  the  journals,  says  of 
this  evidence:  "  It  is  no  reflection  upon  legislative  integrity, 
no  criticism  of  legislative  methods,  to  say  that  the  journals 
of  the  houses  are  of  ten  carelessly,  inaccurately  and  partially 
kept.  They  are  often  hurriedly  made  up,  written  by  clerks 
having  little  aptitude  for  the  work  and  slight  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility in  its  performance.  Upon  many  days,  espe- 
cially as  the  session  advances  and  the  business  accumulates, 
the  saving  of  time  becomes  important,  and  the  reading  of  the 
journal  of  the  preceding  day  is  dispensed  with,  so  that  mis- 
takes fail  of  correction  and  unfortunately  pass  into  forms  of 
legislative  history.  It  is  also  a  notorious  fact  that  in  many 
cases,  to  a  great  extent  in  all  cases,  the  journals  are  not 
made  up  until  after  the  legislative  session  has  closed.  They 
are  then  put  into  such  methodical  shape  as  can  be  done, 
made  up  of  the  loose  and  disconnected  memoranda  noted 
from  day  to  day  as  the  legislative  session  progressed.  These 
facts  justify  courts  in  attaching  less  weight  to  journals  of 
legislative  proceedings  as  evidence  of  the  non-enactment  of 
laws  than  they  would  otherwise  possess." 60 

§  47  (43).  Evidence  to  impeach  enrolled  bill  —  Legisla- 
tive journals. —  The  courts  have  been  exceedingly  conserve 
tive  in  their  researches  involving  the  validity  of  statutes 
having  a  regular  record  or  authentication.  They  have  not 
opened  the  door  to  all  kinds  of  evidence  nor  freely  consulted 
all  sources  of  information.  They  have  given  great  weight 
to  such  authentication;  irregularity  by  departing  from  a 
practice  laid  down  by  the  constitution  is  not  readily  inferred, 
where  written  evidence  should  exist,  in  the  absence  of  prool 
of  that  nature. 

s9  State  v.  Frank,  60   Neb.   327,  196;  Miesen  v.  Canfield,  64  Minn 

334,  335,  83  N.  W.  74.   See  also  Laf-  513,  67  N.  W.  632. 

ferty  v.  Huffman,  99  Ky.  80,  35  S.  60  In  re  Taylor,   60  Kan.  87,   55 

W.  123,  32  L.  R.  A.  203;  Lincoln  v.  Pac.  340. 
Haugan,  45  Minn.   451,  48   N.    W. 


rs 


l'NA.'l  M1.N  I     OF     LAWS. 


The  intention  of  constitutional  provisions  that  they  should 
operate  as  conditions,  or  be  treated  as  mandatory,  is  inferred 
|y  from  the  accompanying  requirement  that  legislative 
ils  be  kept,  preserved  and  given  publicity  by  publica- 
tion, and  that  certain  steps  in  the  process  of  legislation  be 
therein  recorded.61     The  parliamentary  history  of  any  act 
in  question  in  the  legislative  journals  is  the  only  evidence 
which  the  cases  generally  re  ognize,62  though  some  cases  in- 
timate that  other  evidence  may  be  considered.68    Parol  evi- 
dence of  the  action  of  the  two  houses  is  excluded.64    So  parol 
oce  is  not  admissible  to  show  that  a  quorum  was  not 
or  that  the  bill  passed  was  different  from  the  en- 
rolled act.06     Nor  is  the  original  bill  with  its  indorsements 


BiOsbum  v.  Staley,  5  W.  Va  86; 

People  v. 

•..  Jacoby,  It  IlL  297,  58 
Am.  1  »>•<•.  571;  State  v.  Buckley,  54 
Ala.  599;  Jones  v.  Hutchinson.  43 

oog  v.  Randolph,  77  Ala 
Osburn    v.   Sta  ey,   5   W.   Va.   86; 

el  v.  Brethauer,70  III.  I  I 

Am.  Rep.  70;  Wise   v.   Bigger,  79 

569;    Stat.-   v.   McLelland,   18 

Neb.  236;   Board  of  Supervisors  v. 

Heenan,  2  Minn.  330;  People  v.  Ma- 

haney,  13  Mich.   481;   Webster  v. 

Little  Rock,  44  Ark.  536;  Smithee 

v.   t'ampbell,  41   id.   471;    Weill  v. 

Kenfield,    54    Cal.    Ill;    State    v. 

Francis,  26  Can.   724;  Williams  v. 

549;  Moody  v.  State. 

a.  115,  17  Am.  Rep.  28;  Ga 

v.    Harrigan,   4    Lea,    608;    Perry 

<  •..unity  v.  Railroad  Co..  58  Ala  546; 

v.   Hutchinson,  43  id.   721; 

:  v.  Leeper,  7s  id.  517;  Spangler 

v.  Jacoby,  14  111.  297,  58   Am.  Dec. 

571;    Ex    parte   Howard-Harrison 

Iron  Co.,  119  Ala  484,  24  So.  516,  72 

\m.  St,  Rep.  928;  State  v.  Wilson, 

36  So.  482;  Robertson 


v.  State,  130  Ala.  164,  30  So.  494; 
Ja.ks,. n  v.  State,  131  Ala  21,  31 
So.  380;  Fill!  in-ton  v.  Williams,  98 
Ga  807,27  S.  E.  183;  Fillmore  v. 
Van  Home,  129  Mich.  52,  88  N.  W. 
69;  Sjoberg  v.  Security  Savings  <Sc 
Loan  Ass'n,  73  Minn.  203,  75  N.  W. 
1116,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  616;  In  re 
Granger,  56  Neb.  260,  76  N.  W. 
State  v.  Abbott,  50  Neb.  106,  80 
N.  W.  499;  State  v.  Smith,  44  Ohio 
St.  348,  7  N.  E.  447;  State  v.  Kiese- 
wetter,  45  Ohio  St.  254,  12  N.  E. 
807;  State  v.  Swan,  7  Wyo.  16G,  51 
Pac.  209,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  889. 

63  State  v.  Piatt,  2  S.  C.  150,  16 
Am.  Rep.  647. 

u4  Berry  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  41  Md.  446,  20  Am.  Hep.  09; 
Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va.  269;  Sack- 
rider  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  70 
Mich.  59,  44  N.  W.  165;  Sjoberg  v. 
Security  Savings  &  L.  Ass'n,  73 
Minn.  20:).  75  N.  W.  1116,  72  Am. 
St.  Rep.  610. 

w  Auditor-General  v.  Supervisors, 
89  Mich.  552,  51  N.  W.  483. 

6B  Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 
64  Fed.  165. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  79 

admissible  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  the  enrolled  act 
or  contradicting  the  journals.67  In  short,  the  enrolled  bill 
and  the  journals  are  the  only  evidence  which  the  courts  will 
consider,  and  these  cannot  be  aided  or  contradicted  by  other 
documents  or  evidence  of  any  kind.66 

In  State  v.  Frank69  the  house  journal  failed  to  show  the 
yeas  and  nays  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  in  question, 
but  it  was  held  competent  to  show  by  parol  that  the  vote 
was  so  taken  and  entered  in  the  journal  and  that  the  journal 
had  been  mutilated  by  removing  the  sheet  which  contained 
this  matter.  The  court  says:  "It  is  doubtless  the  duty  of 
courts  to  take  judicial  notice  of  the  laws  enacted  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  of  the  records  kept  by  the  two  branches  thereof. 
To  enable  the  court  to  ascertain  what  was  done  by  the  legis- 
lature, it  may  call  to  its  assistance  evidence  of  the  character 
of  that  produced  in  the  trial  below.  This  evidence  did  not 
contradict  the  house  journal;  it  merely  established  the  rec- 
ord as  in  fact  made  by  the  legislature.  It  is  fallacious  to 
argue  that  such  evidence  contradicts  the  record;  it  merely 
supplies  missing  parts  thereof  and  enables  the  court  to  know 
what  the  record  in  fact  was  when  the  legislature  made  it; 
not  what  it  is  after  having  been  mutilated,  through  either 
accident  or  design.  To  hold  that  such  evidence  is  not  com- 
petent would  result  in  the  absurdity  that,  in  case  the  jour- 
nals of  a  session  should  be  destroyed,  all  the  acts  passed  at 
that  session  would  be  invalidated.  The  journals  of  the  legis- 
lature are  like  any  other  records.  Should  they  be  lost  or 
destroyed  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  missing  portions  can  be 
supplied  by  evidence  of  the  same  character  as  required  when 

67  In  re  Granger,  56  Neb.  260,  76  N.  E.  807;  White  v.  Hinton,3  Wyo. 
N.  W.58S;  State  v.  Abbott,  59  Neb.  753,  30  Pac.  953,  17  L.  R.  A.  66; 
106,  80  N.  W.  499;  State  v.  Jones,  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  S. 
22  Ohio  C.  C.  682.  1,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  507,  36  L.  Ed.  S21. 

68  Ex  parte  Howard-Harrison  But  see  State  v.  Secretary  of  State, 
Iron  Co.,  119  Ala.  484,  24  So.  516,  72  43  La.  Ann.  590,  9  So.  776. 

Am.  St.  Rep.  928;  Jackson  v.  State,  fi!)  60  Neb.  327,  83  N.  W.  74;  S.  C. 
131  Ala.  21,  31  So.  380;  State  v.  on  rehearing,  61  Neb.  679,  85  N.  W. 
Kiesewetter,   45   Ohio  St.  254,    12    956. 


8  ENACTMENT  OF   LAWS. 

on  tents  of  any  lost  or  destroyed  record  are  to  beestab- 
.1  or  proved." :" 

mala  cannot  be  aided  or  helped  out  by  reference 
to  the  original  papers  and  memoranda  kept  by  the  clerk  and 

Prom  which  the  journals  proper  were  made  up.71  Nor  has 
the  clerk  any  right  to  correct  the  journal  after  it  has  been 
tiled  with  the  secretary  of  state  for  safe  keeping,  and  any 
such  corrections  will  be  disregarded  by  the  court.7'-'  Where 
s  date  at  the  beginning  of  the  session  dispensed  with 
the  reading  of  the  journal  for  the  entire  session  and  author- 
ized the  secretary  to  make  all  necessary  corrections  from 
day  to  day,  it  was  held  that  corrections  could  be  made  at 
any  time  during  the  session,  and  where  such  corrections  ap- 
i  at  the  end  of  the  journal,  it  was  held  that  it  would 
b  •  presumed  that  they  were  made  during  the  session.7' 

In  another  case  the  printed  journal  of  the  senate  showed 
that  a  certain  act  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  yeas 
to  seven  nays,  and  gave  the  names  respectively.  The  writ- 
ournal  gave  the  same  vote  but  did  not  give  the  names 
<>se  voting  in  the  negative,  and  in  recording  the  names 
of  those  voting  in  the  affirmative  gave  the  seven  names 
.shown  by  the  printed  journal  to  have  voted  in  the  negative. 
The  act  was  held  to  have  been  properly  passed,  and  the 
"•rounds  of  the  decision  are  stated  as  follows:  "  The  written 

o 

be  • .  Frank,  61  Neb.  679,  680,  secretary  of  state  for  safe  keeping 
85  N.  W.  (J56.  after   it   has   been   signed   by   the 
71  Montgomery     Beer     Bottling  speaker  and   himself.     From  and 
II.  126  Ala.  425,  28  after  that  time  he  has  no  custody 
7,85   Am.  St.  Rep.  42:  State  of  it,  no  control  over  it,  no  right  to 
v.  Wilson,  128  Ala.  259,  26  So.  482.  its  possession,  except  for  the  spe- 
:-  II.    In  the  latter  of  the  two  cific  purpose  above  referred  to,  no 
last  cited  the  court  says:  "It  power  to  alter  it  nor  to  prevent 
cannot  be  doubted,  we  think,  and  others  altering  it,  and  is  under  no 
leed  quite  obvious,  that  the  duty  to  keep  it  safely  or  to  pre- 
clerk's  official  connection  with  the  serve  it  from  mutilation  or  inter- 
original    journal  —  all    his    duties  polation." 

with  respect  to  it  except  the  duty  w  People  v.  Burch,  84  Mich.  408, 

of    copying   it   for    the   printer —  47  N.  W.  701 
ceases  upon  his  delivering  it  to  the 


ENACTMENT   OF   LAWS.  81 

journal  of  the  senate,  as  respects  the  proceedings  upon  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  is  clearly  defective.  It  is  true  that  the 
statute  (Gen.  St.  1878,  c.  5,  §  23)  provides  that  the  written 
journal  therein  directed  to  be  made  and  recorded  'shall  be 
considered  the  true  and  authentic  journal;'  but  the  same 
section  also  provides  the  manner  in  which  the  daily  record 
shall  be  prepared  and  printed,  and  which  is  required  to  be 
read  and  examined  and  compared  each  day  with  the  min- 
utes of  the  record  of  the  clerk,  and  is  thereafter  printed  and 
made  up  in  the  bound  volumes  of  the  journal,  and  'full 
faith  and  credit'  are  to  be  given  to  the  journals  properly 
printed  and  certified.  (Sec.  38.)  In  this  case  it  was  clearly 
shown  that  the  written  journal  was  not  made  as  the  statute 
required,  but  was  made  up  and  completed  long  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  session,  from  the  printed  journal,  and 
that  there  was  a  mistake  made  by  the  scrivener  in  recording 
the  names  entered.  The  irregular  and  incomplete  enroll- 
ment of  the  names  is  fully  accounted  for,  and  all  doubt  that 
the  bill  was  passed  by  the  requisite  vote  is  removed."  74 

A  written  protest  incorporated  in  the  journals  and  reciting 
certain  facts  was  held  not  to  be  effective  to  contradict  or 
invalidate  the  journals.75  The  courts  have  no  power  to  cor- 
rect or  change  the  journals,  and  will  not  entertain  a  suit  to 
compel  the  clerk  or  secretary  of  state  to  do  so."6 

§  48  (44).  The  journals,  by  being  required  by  the  con- 
stitution or  laws,  are  records.  At  common  law  the  legis- 
lative journals  were  not  strictly  records;  while  admissible 
in  evidence  for  certain  purposes,  as  official  memorials  or  re- 
membrances, they  were  not  admissible  to  show  that  an  act 
of  parliament  had  not  been  passed  according  to  its  own 
rules.77     But  when  required,  as  is  extensively  the  case  in  this 

m  Lincoln  v.  Haugan,  45  Minn.  ™  state  v.  Wilson,  123  Ala.  259, 

451,  48  N.  W.  196.  26  So.   482;    Burkhart  v.   Reed,   2 

75  Auditor-General  v.  Supervisors,  Idaho,   503,   22  Pac.   1;  Clough   v. 

89  Mich.  552,  51  N.  W.  483.     And  Curtis,  2  Idaho,  523,  22  Pac.  28. 

see  Cutcher  v.  Crawford,  105  Ga.  77  King  v.  Arundel,  Hob.  110. 
180,  31  S.  E.  139. 
6 


IN  A.    I  Ml  M     or     LAWS. 

country,  by  a  paramount  Law,  for  the  obvious  purpose  of 
showing  how  the  mandatory  provisions  of  that  law  have 
been  followed  in  the  methods  and  forms  of  legislation,  they 
are  thus  made  records  in  dignity,  and  are  of  great  impor- 
I  mce.18  Tlic  legislative  acts  regularly  authenticated  are  also 
records;  the  acts  passed,  duly  authenticated,  and  such  jour- 
nals are  parallel  records,  but  the  latter  are  superior  when 
explicit  and  conflicting  with  the  other,  for  the  acts  authen- 
ticated speak  decisively  only  when  the  journals  are  silent, 
and  not  even  then  as  to  particulars  required  to  be  entered 
therein. 

In  Gardner  v.  The  Collector,79  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  speaking 
for  the  whole  court  on  the  question  of  proving  the  date  of  the 
president's  approval  of  a  hill,  laid  down  this  general  rule:  that 
"on  principle  as  well  as  authority,  whenever  a  question  arises 
in  a  court  of  law  of  the  existence  of  a  statute,  or  of  the  time 
when  a  statute  took  effect,  or  of  the  precise  terms  of  a  statute, 
the  judges  who  are  called  upon  to  decide  it  have  a  right  to 
resort  to  any  source  of  information  which  in  its  nature  is  ca- 
pable of  conveying  to  the  judicial  mind  a  clear  and  satisfac- 
tory answer  to  such  question;  always  seeking  first  for  that 
which  in  its  nature  is  most  appropriate,  unless  the  positive 
law  has  enacted  a  different  rule." 

§  49  (45).  Court  will  not  act  on  admissions  of  parties. — 
A  statute  will  not  be  declared  void  for  having  been  enacted 
in  violation  of  provisions  of  the  constitution  relating  to 
procedure  on  the  admissions  of  parties  in  pleadings  or  oth- 
erwise, but  only  on  facts  being  ascertained  from  proper  evi- 
dence.80 A  statute  cannot  be  made  or  unmade  by  agreement 
of  the  parties.81  Where  counsel  stipulated  as  to  what  the 
journals  showed  the  court  refused  to  act  upon  it,  but  required 

78  Opinion  of  Justices,  35  N.  H.  State  v.  Boise,  5  Idaho,  519,  51  Pac. 

"'J;  52  id.  622;  Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  110;  New  Hannover  Co.  Com'rs  v. 

Va  209;  State  v.  Smalls,  11  S.  C.  262.  Derosset,  129  N.  C.  275,  40  S.  E.  43. 

"9  0  Wall.  499,  511, 18  L.  Ed.  890.  81  Fullington  v.  Williams,  98  Ga. 

80  Happel  v.  Brethauer,  70  111.  100;  807,  27  S.  E.  18a 
Legg  v.  Mayor,    etc.,   42    Bid.   203; 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  83 

the  whole  journals  or  a  certified  copy  to  be  produced.32  In 
Penns}4vania  a  local  law  was  declared  invalid  on  the  ad- 
mission of  parties  that  notice  of  the  application  for  the  law 
wras  not  given,  as  required  by  the  constitution;83  but  in  Geor- 
gia the  court  declined  to  act  upon  such  admission  in  the 
same  kind  of  a  case.84 

In  a  proceeding  for  a  mandamus  against  the  state  auditor 
of  Kentucky  to  compel  him  to  draw  his  warrant  upon  an 
appropriation  for  the  world's  fair  at  Chicago,  he  answered 
that  the  act  making  the  appropriation  was  not  duly  passed, 
for  the  reason  that  on  its  final  passage  the  vote  was  not 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays  and  entered  on  the  journal  as  re- 
quired by  the  constitution.  The  petitioners  demurred  to 
the  answer.  The  court  acted  upon  the  admission  made  by 
the  demurrer,  and  refused  the  mandamus^ 

§  50  (46).  Presumption  in  favor  of  enrolled  act. — When 
an  act  is  found  lodged  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state, 
with  the  public  acts  passed  at  the  same  session,  signed  by 
the  presiding  officers,  approved  and  signed  by  the  governor, 
and  it  is  published  by  authority  as  one  of  the  public  stat- 
utes of  the  state,  or  is  otherwise  authenticated  according 
to  law,  and  in  proper  custody,  the  presumption  is  that  it 
was  regularly  passed,  unless  there  is  evidence  of  which  the 
oourts  take  judicial  notice  showing  the   contrary.86     The 

82  State  v.  Boise,  5  Idaho,  519,  51  other  courts.  We  must  exercise 
Pac.110.  our  power  with  fidelity  to  it;  and 

83  Chalfant  v.  Edwards,  173  Pa.  when  we  are  urged  to  hold  that 
St.  246,  83  Atl.  1048.  the  signatures  to  the  act  import 

84Fullington  v.  Williams,  98  Ga.  what  is  confessed  by  the  party  ask- 
807,27  S.  E.  183.  In  Rodman-Heath  ing  relief  to  be  untrue,  and  to  en- 
Cotton  Mills  v.  Waxhaw,  130  N.  C.  force  as  law  an  act  plainly  in  vio- 
293,  41  S.  E.  488,  the  court  appears  lation  of  the  constitution,  the 
to  have  acted  on  the  admissions  of  court,  in  the  exercise  of  its  discre- 
parties.  tion  in  the  use  of  this  writ,  should 

85 Norman  v.  Ky.  Board  of  Man-  withhold  it."    p.  548. 

agers,  93  Ky.  537,  20  S.  W.  901,  18  8S  Post,  §  57;  Harrison  v.  Gordy, 

L.  R.  A.  556.    The  court  says:  '"A  57  Ala.  49;  Perry  County  v.  Railroad 

constitutional  rule  is  not  only  for  Co.,   58    Ala.    546;    Henderson    v. 

the   legislature,   but  this  and  all  State,  94  Ala.   95,  10  So.   332;  Ex 


]  NA01  Ml  N  1'    OF    LAWS. 


journals  are  records,  and  in  all  respects  touching  proceed- 
ings under  the  mandatory  provisions  of  the  constitution 
will  he  effeotual  to  impeach  and  avoid  the  acts  recorded  as 
laws  and  duly  authenticated,  if  the  journals  affirmatively 
show  that  these  provisions  have  been  disregarded.  In  the 
nee  of  such  an  affirmative  showing,  and  even  in  cases 
of  doubt,  it  will  be  presumed  that  a  quorum  was  present;87 


parto  Howard-Harrison  Iron  Co., 
119  Ala.  484,  01  So.  516,72  Am.  St. 
Rep.  928;  In  re  Roberts.  .">  i  'bl< 

rvisora  v.  People,  25  111.  181; 
Larrison  v.  Railroad  Co.,  77  111.  11; 

>le  v.  Loewenthal,  93  111.  L91; 
Illinois  Cent.  R  R  Co.  v.  People, 
148  Hi.  484,  33  N.  E,  173.  1'.)  1-  R.  A. 
119;  People  v.  Knapp,  198  [11.  340, 
-  A  X.  E.  HOT:  State  v.  Francis,  20 
Kan.  724;  People  v.  Burch,  84 
Mich.  ins.  ,|7  x.  w.  765;  Duluth  v. 
Krupp,  K)  Minn.  435,  49  N.  W.  235; 
v.  Wray,  mi)  Mo.  594,  19  S. 
W.  86;  State  v.  Field,  119  Mo, 
24  S.  W.  752;  State  v.  McLelland, 
IS  Neb.  236;  Opinions  of  Justices, 

.  H.  579;  Opinions  of  Justices, 
52  N.  H  622;  People  v.  Briggs,  50 
N.  V  nam  v.   Chitty,  131 

N.  C.  657,  43  s.  i;.  3;  Miller  v.  State, 
3  OhioSt.  475;  McKinnou  v.  Cotner, 
30  Ore  588,  49  Pac.  956;  Speer  v. 
Plank  R.  Co.,  22  Pa.  St.  370;  Gilli- 
land  v.  Baptist  Church,  33  S.  C. 
164,  11  s.  K.  884;  State  v.  McCon- 
nell.  -:  Williams  v.  State, 

6  Lea,  549;  Nelson  v.  Haywood 
County,  91  Tenn.  596,20  S.  W.  1; 
v.  Bigger,  79  Va.  269;  Price 
v.  Moundsville,  43  W.  Va.  523,  27  S. 
K  218,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  878;  Bound 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  45  Wis.  543;  State 
an.  7  Wyo.  166,  51  Pac.  209, 
78  Am.  St.  Rep.  889.  In  Ex  parte 
Howard-Harrison     Iron     Co.,    119 


Ala.  484,  21  So.  510.72  Am.  St.  Rep. 
928,  the  court  says:  "Of  course  the 
presumption  is  that  the  Lill  signed 
by  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
two  houses  and  approved  by  the 
governor  is  the  bill  which  the  two 
houses  concurred  in  passing,  and 
the  contrary  must  he  made  to  af- 
firmatively appear  before  i  differ- 
ent eonclusion  can  be  justified  or 
supported.  So  here,  it  must  be 
made  to  affirmatively  appear  that 
amendments  of  the  house  bill  in 
question  were  adopted  by  the  sen- 
ate and  were  not  concurred  in  by 
the  house.  And  this  must  be  shown 
by  the  journals  of  the  two  houses. 
No  other  evidence  is  admissible. 
The  journals  can  neither  be  con- 
tradicted nor  amplified  by  loose 
memoranda  made  by  the  clerical 
officers  of  the  houses.  To  these 
the  courts  cannot  look  for  any  pur- 
pose. Nor  will  it  be  presumed 
from  the  silence  of  the  journals  on 
a  matter  upon  which  it  is  proper 
for  them  to  speak  that  either 
house  has  disregarded  a  constitu- 
tional requirement  in  the  passage 
of  the  act,  except  in  those  cases 
where  the  organic  law  expn  !y 
requires  the  journals  to  show  the 
action  taken,  as  when  it  requires 
the  yeas  and  nays  to  be  entered." 
p.  491. 
&7Auditor-Ceneral  v.  Supervisors, 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


85 


that  the  necessary  readings  occurred;88  that  amendments 
made  by  one  branch,  though  extensive,  were  germane;89 
that  they  were  concurred  in  b}'  the  other  'branch,  though 
the  journals  may  be  silent.90  If  the  journals  are  carelessly 
kept,  the  court  will  more  readily  indulge  in  presumptions 
in  aid  of  the  act.91 

§  51  (17).  Enrolled  act  not  impeached  hy  silence  of 
journals. —  As  all  particulars  of  compliance  with  the  con- 
stitution are  not  specially  required  to  be  entered  on  the 
journals,  such  compliance  will  be  presumed  in  the  absence 
of  proof  to  the  contrary ;  the  silence  of  the  journals  will 
not  be  accepted  as  proof  that  a  proceeding  required  and  not 
found  recorded  was  omitted,  even  though  it  be  a  proceeding 
required  in  the  two  houses,  and  such  as  would  appear  in  the 
journals  if  it  occurred  and  they  contained  a  memorial  of  all 
that  was  done.92     The  presumption  of  regularity  is  exempli- 


89  Mich.  552,  51  N.  W.  483;  Deb- 
nara  v.  Chitty,  131  N.  C.  657,  43  S. 
E.  3. 

88McCulloch  v.  State,  11  Ind.  424; 
Supervisors  v.  People,  25  111.  181; 
Miller  v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475;  Peo- 
ple v.  Dunn,  80  Cal.  211,  22  Pac. 
140,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  118;  Massa- 
chusetts Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Col. 
L.  &  T.  Co.,  20  Colo.  1,  36  Pac.  793; 
Illinois  Central  R  R  Co.  v.  People, 
143  111.  434,  33  N.  E.  173,  19  L.  R.  A. 
119. 

69  Miller  v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475; 
Pack  v.  Barton,  47  Mich.  520. 

90  State  v.  Hastings,  24  Minn.  78; 
Walker  v.  Griffith,  60  Ala.  361; 
Blessing  v.  Galveston,  42  Tex.  611; 
Miller  v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475;  Vin- 
sant  v.  Knox,  27  Ark.  279;  English 
v.  Oliver,  28  id.  317;  Usener  v. 
State,  8  Tex.  App.  177;  Worthen  v. 
Badgett,  32  Ark.  516;  Supervisors 
v.  People,  25  111.  181;  Ex  parte 
Howard-Harrison     Iron     Co.,    119 


Ala.  484,  24  So.  516,  72  Am.  St.  Rep. 
928;  Jackson  v.  State,  131  Ala.  21, 
31  So.  380;  State  v.  Andrews,  64 
Kan.  474,  67  Pac.  870;  McKinnon 
v.  Cotner,  30  Ore.  588,  49  Pac.  956; 
State  v.  Brown,  33  S.  C.  151,  11  S. 
E.  641. 

91  In  re  Roberts,  5  Colo.  525;  In 
re  Taylor,  60  Kau.  87,  55  Pac.  340. 

92  Ante,  §  50,  note  90;  Ex  parte 
Howard-Harrison  Iron  Co.,  119  Ala. 
484,  24  So.  516,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  928; 
Jackson  v.  State,  131  Ala.  21,  31  So. 
380;  Keene  v.  Jefferson  Co.,  135  Ala. 
465,  33  So.  435;  People  v.  Dunn,  80 
Cal.  211,  22  Pac.  140, 13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
118;  Massachusetts  Mut.  Life  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Col.  L.  &  T.  Co.,  20  Colo.  1,  36 
Pac.  793;  State  v.  Green,  36  Fla. 
154,  18  So.  334;  Butler  v.  State,  89 
Ga.  821,  15  S.  E.  763;  State  v.  An- 
drews, 64  Kan.  474,  67  Pac.  870; 
Hollingworth  v.  Thompson,  45  La. 
Ann.  222,  12  So.  1,  40  Am.  St.  Rep. 
220;  People  v.  Burch,  84  Mich.  408, 


IN  Ail  Ml   NT    OF     1  AWS. 


Bed  also  in  cases  where  notice  is  required  to  be  published 
before  application  to  the  legislature  for  oertain  private  or 
ilation.  In  the  absence  of  any  entry  in  the  journals 
Bhowing  such  previous  notice  or  alluding  to  it,  it  will  be 
presumed  in  favor  of  the  law  that  such  notice  was  given, 
and  that  the  legislature  exacted  proof  of  it.93  So  when  the 
power  to  Legislate  on  a  certain  subject  depends  upon  the  ex- 
istence of  certain  facts,  such  as  a  specified  population,  it 
will  be  presumed  in  favor  of  the  act  passed  that  the  facts 
existed.91 

In  Kansas  it  has  been  held  that  "an  enrolled  statute  im- 
ports absolute  verity  and  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  pas- 
of  the  act  and  of  its  validity,  unless  the  journals  of 
the  legislature  show  affirmatively,  clearly,  conclusively  and 
beyond  all  doubt  that  the  act  was  not  passed  regularly  and 
legally.'' '''  And  the  supreme  court  of  Oregon  is  equally  em- 
phatic; and  where  the  journals  of  both  houses  showed  that 
an  act  was  amended  by  adding  a  certain  section,  but  the  en- 
rolled act  did  not  contain  such  section,  the  court  presumed 
that  the  amendment  was  reconsidered  and  defeated/*  "If 
there  is  any  room  to  doubt  as  to  what  the  journals  of  the 


47  X.  YV.  765;  State  v.  Field,  11!) 
Ma  593,  2  l  S.  W.  752;  State  v.  Long, 
21  Mont.  26,  52  Pac.  645;  Web 
Hastings,  59  Neb.  503.  81  N.  W.  510: 
Cur rie  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  21 
Ore.  5GG,  2^  Pac.  884;  State  v.  Rog- 

52  Ore  348,  30  Pac.  74;  Ritchie 
v.  I:i  shards,  It  Utah,  345,  47  Pac. 
670;  Price  v.  Moundsville,  43  W.  Va. 

27  S.   E.   218,  64   Am.  St.  Rep. 
B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Smyth,  103  Fed.  876. 

Walker  v.  Griffith,  GO  Ala.  361; 
Harrison  v.  Gordy,  57  id.  40:  Mc- 
Kemie  v.  Gorman,  08  id.  442:  Brod- 

v.  Groom,  64  N.  C.  244;  Speer 
v.  Mayor,  etc..  42  Alb.  L.  J.  232  (Ga.); 
Keene  v.  Jefferson  Co.,  135  Ala.  105, 

.  435;  Fullington  v.  Williams, 


98  Ga.  807,  27  S.  E.  183;  Cham  lee  v. 
Davis,  115  Ga.  266,  41  S.  E.  691. 

94  Ex  parte  Renfrew,  112  Mo.  591, 
20  S.  W.  682;  Roby  v.  Shepard,  42 
W.  Va.  2S6,  26  S.  E.  278. 

95 State  v.  Andrews,  64  Kan.  474, 
67  Pac.  870.  And  see  Chesney  v. 
McClintock,  Gl  Kan.  94,  58  Pac 
993;  In  re  Taylor,  60  Kan.  87,  55 
Pac.  340. 

96McKinnon  v.  Cotner,  30  Ore. 
588,  49  Pac.  95G.  The  court  says: 
"It  nowhere  appears  in  the  jour- 
nal that  it  did  not  pass  in  the  form 
as  actually  signed  by  the  presiding 
ollicfM-s.  and  now  on  file  in  the  office 
of  the  secretary  of  state.  It  is  true 
the  journals  show  that  in  its  prog- 
ress   through    the   legislature    an 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


87 


legislature  show,  if  they  are  merely  silent  or  ambiguous,  or 
if  it  is  possible  to  explain  them  on  the  hypothesis  that  the 
enrolled  statute  is  correct  and  valid,  then  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  courts  to  hold  that  the  enrolled  statute  is  valid."97 

§  52.  What  sufficient  to  impeach  enrolled  act. —  When 
it  clearly  appears  by  the  journals  that  any  required  pro- 
ceeding was  omitted;  as  when  one  of  the  prescribed  read- 
ings did  not  take  place,  or  was  by  title  when  required  by 
sections  or  at  length;98  or  when  it  appears  that  the  bill, 
passed  by  one  branch  of  the  legislature,  was  in  materially 
different  terms  from  the  bill  passed  by  the  other  branch,99 
or  when  one  branch  wholly  failed  to  pass  it;1  or  when  the 
bill  approved  by  the  governor  and  authenticated  as  the  law 
requires  is  materially  different  from  the  bill  passed  by  the 
two  houses,2  it  will  be  held  a  nullity.  An  appropriation  bill 
passed  both  houses  in  the  legislature  with  an  item  of  $15,000 


amendment  was  adopted  which  is 
not  included  in  the  enrolled  act, 
but  the  vote  by  which  such  amend- 
ment was  adopted  may  have  been 
reconsidered,  and  the  amendment 
defeated.  At  least  the  courts  are 
bound  to  presume  such  to  have 
been  the  case." 

97  State  v.  Francis,  26  Kan.  724, 
731;  Chesney  v.  McClintock,  61 
Kan.  94,  99,  58  Pac.  993. 

98  Ryan  v.  Lynch,  68  111.  160;  Su- 
pervisors v.  Heenan,  2  Minn.  830; 
Weill  v.  Kentield,  54  Cal.  Ill;  Peo- 
ple v.  Loewenthal,  98  111.  191;  State 
v.  Hagood,  13  S.  C.  46.  See  County 
of  San  Mateo  v.  Railroad  Co.,  8 
Am.  &  E.  R  R.  Cas.  1,  13  Fed.  Rep. 
722;  post,  §  54. 

99  State  v.  Larche,  105  La.  84,  29 
So.  700. 

i  Bound  v.  Railroad  Co.,  45  Wis. 
543;  Meracle  v.  Down,  64  id.  323; 
Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va.  269;  People 
v.  De  Wolf,  62  111.  253;  Opinions  of 


Justices,  35  N.  H.  579;  52  id.  622; 
Montgomery  Beer  Bottling  Works 
v.  Gaston,  126  Ala.  425,  28  So.  497, 
85  Am.  St.  Rep.  42;  Currie  v.  South- 
ern  Pac.  Co..  21  Ore.  566,  28  Pac. 
884;  Brewer  v.  Huntingdon,  86 
Tenn.  732,  9  S.  W.  166;  State  v. 
Wendler,  94  Wis.  369,  68  N.  W.  759. 
2Moog  v.  Randolph,  77  Ala.  597; 
Moody  v.  State,  48  id.  115,  17  Am. 
Rep.  28;  Jones  v.  Hutchinson,  43 
Ala.  721;  Sayre  v.  Pollard,  77  id. 
608;  Stein  v.  Leeper,  78  id.  517; 
Legg  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  42  Md.  203; 
State  v.  Liedtke,  9  Neb.  462;  Berry 
v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Md. 
446,  20  Am.  Rep.  69;  State  v.  Piatt, 
2  S.  C.  150,  16  Am.  Rep.  647;  State 
v.  Hagood,  1*3  S.  C.  46;  Rode  v. 
Phelps,  80  Mich.  598,  45  N.  W.  493; 
State  v.  Wendler,  94  Wis.  369,  68 
N.  W.  759;  State  v.  Swan,  7  Wyo. 
16P,  51  Pac.  209,  75  Am.  St.  Rep. 
889.  Compare  McKinnon  v.  Cot- 
ner,  30  Ore.  588,  49  Pac.  956. 


B8 


l  N  \'   i\ii  \  r    OF    l  W\s. 


t«>  pay  tin1  expenses  of  certain  impeaohment  prooeedings. 
In  the  enrolled  bill,  which  was  signed  by  the  presiding  offi- 

ind  approved  by  the  governor,  the  item  was  ohanged 
5,000.  It  was  held  valid  to  the  amount  of  $15,000." 
The  title  is  an  essential  part  of  an  act;  and  where  an  act  is 
1  under  different  titles  in  the  two  houses,  or  where  the 
title  of  the  enrolled  hill  differs  materially  from  the  title  of 
the  act  as  passed,  it  does  not  hecome  a  law.4  Mere  verbal 
or  immaterial  differences  do  not  vitiate.5  An  act  entitled 
"  An  aet  to  regulate  the  sale  of  liquors  in  less  quantities 
than  one  quart "  passed  the  house  and  went  to  the  senate. 
Tn  that  body  it  was  passed  with  an  amendment  striking  out 
of  the  body  of  the  act  everything  relating  to  sales  in  less 
quantities  than  one  quart.  The  house  concurred  in  the 
amendment  and  then  amended  the  title  by  striking  out  the 
words,  "in  less  quantities  than  one  quart."     The  hill   was 


•  State  v.  Moore,  37  Neb.  13,  55  N. 
W.  299.  The  court  says:  'It  is 
now  settled  that  this  court  will 
look  into  the  records  and  journals 
of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature 
to  ascertain  if  they  have  complied 
with  tin-  constitutional  provisions 
of  the  state  with  reference  to  the 
enactment  of  a  law.  "When  this  is 
done  it  becomes  evident  that  the 
senate  did  not  at  any  time,  nor  did 
the  house  of  representatives  upon 
the  final  consideration  of  the  bill, 
agree  to  an  appropriation  of  $25,000, 
so  that  the  act  cannot  be  construed 
as  an  appropriation  of  this  sum  for 
want  of  concurrence  of  all  the  law- 
making branches  It  is  equally 
clear  that  both  houses  did  concur 
in  the  appropriation  of  $15,000. 
This  appropriation  must  also  tail 
unless  approved  by  the  governor, 
or  by  the  bill's  becoming  a  law  in 
one  of  the  ways  provided  by  the 
constitution  without  his  approval. 


The  governor,  by  signing  the  bill 
as  enrolled,  expressed  his  approval 
of  an  appropriation  of  $25,000.  We 
think  that  this  sum  being  one 
greater  than  that  provided  by  the 
legislature,  his  approval  thereof  in- 
cluded an  approval  of  the  lesser 
sum." 

4  Fillmore  v.  Van  Horn,  129  Midi. 
52;  Weis  v.  Ashley,  59  Neb.  494,  81 
N.  W.  318,  80  Am.  St.  Rep.  704; 
(  hicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R  Co.  v.  Smyth, 
103  Fed.  376;  Simpson  v.  Union 
Stock  Yards,  110  Fed.  799;  State  v. 
Green,  36  Fla.  154,  18  So.  334;  State 
v.  I'.urlington,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  60 
Neb.  741,  84  N.  W.  251. 

5  Illinois  Central  R  R.  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple, 113  111.  431,  33  N.  E.  173,  19  L. 
];.  A.  119;  Price  v.  Mound.sville,  43 
W.  Va.  523,  27  S.  E.  218,  64  Am.  St. 
Rep.  878;  Stow  v.  Grand  Rapids,  79 
Mich.  505,  44  N.  W.  1017;  State  v. 
I>oherty,  3  Idaho,  384,  29  Pac.  855. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  89 

then  enrolled  and  approved  without  being  returned  to  the 
senate  for  its  concurrence  in  the  amendment  of  the  title. 
The  act  was  held  valid,  the  court  saying:  "After  the  senate 
amended  said  bill,  that  part  of  the  title  referring  to  the 
quantity  of  liquor  sold  was  mere  surplusage,  as  no  part  of 
said  act  contained  any  provisions  referring  to  the  quantity. 
The  amendment  of  the  title,  as  made  by  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, was  not  one  of  substance  and  did  not  invalidate 
the  act."6 

An  act,  as  introduced,  passed  and  sent  to  the  governor, 
bore  the  title:  "An  act  to  amend  sec.  4  of  act  No.  282  of 
the  local  acts  of  1887,  entitled,"  etc.  "When  returned  by 
the  governor  the  date  1877  appeared  in  place  of  1887.  There 
was  no  act  No.  282  of  1887,  and  the  title  given  was  the 
title  of  act  No.  282  of  1877.  The  act  was  held  valid.7  The 
journals  showed  that  a  bill  was  amended  by  adding  sec- 
tions which  were  not  within  the  original  title  of  the  bill. 
All  through  the  proceedings  for  its  passage  it  was  referred 
to  by  the  original  title  and  was  reported  as  enrolled  under 
that  title.  The  enrolled  bill  in  fact  had  an  amended  title 
sufficient  to  cover  the  added  sections,  and  this  was  first 
mentioned  in  the  message  of  the  governor  announcing  the 
approval  of  the  bill.  The  journals  did  not  show  any  amend- 
ment of  the  title.  The  court,  however,  presumed  that  such 
amendment  was  made  and  held  the  act  valid.8  The  fact 
that  a  bill  is  referred  to  in  different  places  in  the  journal 
under  a  somewhat  different  title  is  immaterial,  if  the  iden- 

6  State  v.  Doherty,  3  Idaho,  384,  was  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of 
29  Pac.  855.  the  title,  and  but  the  correction  of 

7  Stow  v.  Grand  Rapids.  79  Mich,  a  clerical  error, — a  correction  which 
595,  44  N.  W.  1047.  The  court  says:  would  be  permissible  in  a  deed  or 
"We  think  the  figures  '1887'  in  contract,  and  which  the  law  would 
the  title,  as  introduced  and  agreed  make  in  default  of  any  other  ac- 
to  by  the  legislature,  were  simply  tion."    p.  597. 

a  clerical  error,  and  were  corrected  8  State  v.  Andrews,  64  Kan.  474, 
by  the  reading  of  the  whole  title;  67  Pac.  870;  Cotting  v.  K.  C.  Stock 
and  that  the  making  of  it  '1877'    Yards  Co.,  82  Fed.  839. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


of  the  bill  is  dear.'    A  bill  was  sometimes  referred  to  as 

D9  and  sometimes  as  No.  339,  but  always  under  the  same 
title.  The  bill  with  the  title  in  question,  when  introduced, 
was  numbered  399,  and  bill  X<>.  339  was  previously  passed. 
It  was  hold  that  the  title  identified  the  bill,  that  all  the 

entries  in  question  related  to  the  same  bill,  and  that  it  was 
duly  passed.10  A  conference  committee  agreed  upon  certain 
amendments  to  bill  Xo.  25S  S.,  relating  to  game,  which 
were  reported  to  the  respective  houses.  The  senate  duly 
concurred  in  the  amendments.  There  was  pending  in  the 
house,  bill  Xo.  258  A.,  relating  to  change  of  county  seats. 
The  house  journal  showed  that  these  amendments,  setting 
them  forth  at  length,  were  offered  to  bill  Xo.  25S  A.,  and 
adopted,  and  that  bill  Xo.  258  A.,  giving  its  proper 
title,  as  amended  by  the  conference  committee,  was  read 
and  passed.  The  court  held  that  it  could  not  presume  that 
the  use  of  25S  A.,  with  its  title,  was  a  mistake  for  258  S., 
with  a  different  title,  and  therefore  held  that  the  house 
journal  did  not  show  the  passage  of  the  bill.11  The  fact  that 
the  entries  in  the  journal  are  confused  or  inconsistent  will 


9  Attorney-General  v.  Parsell,  100 
Mich.  170,58  N.  W.  839;  Nelson  v. 
Haywood  County,  91  Tenn.  090,  20 
S.  W.  1. 

10  Miesen  v.  Canfield,  64  Minn. 
513,  07  N.  W.  032.  We  quote  as 
follows:  "It  is  reasonably  clear,  if 
not  absolutely  certain,  that  all  en- 

in  the  journal  relating  to  a 
bill  of  this  title  refer  to  one  and 
the  same  bill,  and  the  fact  that  it 

i  >meti  mes  numbered  house  file 
339  was  merely  a  clerical  mistake. 
The  file  number  is  no  legal  or  con- 
stitutional part  of  the  titleof  a  bill. 
It  is  merely  designed  for  the  co  i- 
venience  of  the  legislative  mi  m- 

and  clerks.  It  may  therefore 
be  rejected  as  surplusage,  and,  if 
this  is  done,  there  is  neither  defect 


nor  ambiguity   in   the   legislative 
journals." 

11  State  v.  Wendler,  94  Wis.  309, 
88  N.  W.759.  The  court  says:  "We 
are  vehemently  urged  to  hold  that 
the  bill  referred  to  as  number  2 58  A, 
in  the  assembly  journal  was  num- 
ber 258  S.,  and  that  the  use  of  the 
wrong  letter  was  simply  a  palpable 
clerical  error  which  the  court  could 
overlook.  It  appeared  that  there 
was  a  bill  introduced  in  the  assem- 
bly and  known  as  258  A.  It  was  a 
bill  amending  the  law  relating  to 
elections  held  to  consider  the 
change  of  county  seats.  This  bill 
is  pertinently  and  correctly  de- 
scribed  in  the  assembly  journal. 
It  is  described  by  number,  and  its 
title  is  given  at  length.     It  is  this 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


91 


not  invalidate  the  act.12  Where  the  journals  show  that  an 
act  was  vetoed  and  do  not  show  that  it  was  passed  over  the 
veto,  it  is  not  a  law.13 

§  53  (48).  Matters  which  the  constitution  expressly  re- 
quires to  be  entered  in  journal. —  It*  the  constitution,  how- 
ever, requires  a  certain  proceeding  in  the  process  of  legisla- 
tion to  be  entered  in  the  journals,  the  entry  is  a  condition 
on  which  the  validity  of  the  act  will  depend.  The  vital 
fact  that  on  the  final  passage  of  a  bill  the  required  number 
of  votes  are  given  in  its  favor  is  extensively  directed  by 
constitutions  to  be  entered  on  the  journals,  together  with 
the  names  of  those  voting.  Under  the  operation  of  these 
provisions,  there  is  no  presumption  that  the  required  vote 
was  given  if  the  journal  is  silent.  It  must  affirmatively  ap- 
pear by  the  journals  that  this  constitutional  requirement 
has  been  complied  with.14     Where  the  journal  shows  only 


bill  which  the  assembly  journal 
says  in  direct  and  unmistakable 
language  was  read  a  third  time  and 
passed.  Can  the  court  say,  in  face 
of  this  positive  declaration,  that  it 
was  another  bill  which  passed? 
We  think  not.  If  it  could,  then 
there  would  be  no  reliance  to  be 
placed  on  the  legislative  record. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that 
it  seems  very  probable  that  a  mis- 
take was  made,  and  that  258  S.  was 
the  bill  which  was  acted  on.  But 
laws  cannot  rest  on  probabilities, 
even  though  they  be  extreme  prob- 
abilities. If  a  court  can  say,  '  It  is 
true  the  legislative  record  shows 
that  one  bill  was  passed,  still  it  ap- 
pears to  the  court  that  the  record 
is  mistaken,  and  that  an  entirely 
different  bill  was  meant,  and  con- 
sequently it  shall  be  enforced  as 
law,'  then  there  is  an  end  of  all 
certainty.  The  law  rests  no  more 
upon  records,  but  upon  the  guess 


of  a  court  made  long  afterwards. 
This  cannot  be  endured.  The  offi- 
cial record  must  govern  when  its 
language  is  clear  and  free  from 
doubt  or  ambiguity;  and  that  rec- 
ord shows  that  bill  number  258  S. 
was  never  acted  on  in  the  assembly 
after  it  went  to  the  conference 
committee."    pp.  377,  378. 

12Hollingsworth  v.  Thompson,  45 
La.  Ann.  222,  12  So.  1,  40  Am.  St. 
Rep.  220. 

13  Trading  Stamp  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis, 101  Tenn.  181,  47  S.  W.  136. 

"State  v.  Buckley,  54  Ala.  599; 
State  v.  Francis,  26  Kan.  724;  In  re 
Vanderberg,  28  id.  243;  Weyand  v. 
Stover,  35  id.  545, 11  Pac.  355;  South 
Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S.  260,  24 
L.  Ed.  154;  People  v.  Mahaney,  13 
Mich.  481;  Spangler  v.  Jacbby,  14 
111.  297,  58  Am.  Dec.  571;  People  v. 
Starne.  35  111.  121;  Ryan  v.  Lynch, 
68  id.  160;  Post  v.  Supervisors,  105 
U,  S.  607;  Osburn  v.  Staley,  5  W. 


1  .\  At   I  Ml  \  I    OF    LAWS. 


the  Dames  of  those  voting  in  the  affirmative,  the  act  will  be 

invalid,  unless  it  is  also  staled  that  there  were  no  negative 


y.i.  B6;  Bouldin  v.  T.ockhart,  1  Lea, 

195;  State  v.  Corbett,  61  Ark.  286, 

w.  686;  People  v.  Knopf,  198 

111.  340,  G4  N.  E,  1127;  Norman  v. 
Kentucky  Board  of  Managers,  '.>:! 
Ky.  687,  20  S.  W.  901,  18  L  R.  A. 

State  v.  Mason.  1V>  Mo.  486,55 
s.  \Y.  OoO:  Union  Bank  v.  Coin'rs, 
119  N.  C.  214,  25  S.  E.  916,  34  L.  R. 

-7:  Rodman  v.  Washington, 
182  N.  C.  39,  30  S.  E  118;  Charlotte 
v.  Shepard,  122  N.  C.  602,  29  S.  E. 

Wilkes  Co.  Com'ra  v.  Call,  123 
N.  C.  308,  31  S.  E.  481;  Smathers  v. 
Com 're,  185  N.  C.  480,  34  S.  E.  554; 
Glenn  v.  Wray;  186  N.  C.  7:J0,  36 
S.  EKiT:  New  Hannover  Co.  Com'ra 
v.  Derossat,  189  X.  C.  275,  40  S.  EL 
43;  Hooker  v.  Greenville,  130  N.  G 
478,  42  s.  El  141;  Debnam  v.  Chitty, 
131  X.  C.  657,  43  S.  R  3;  State  v. 
Swan,  7  Wya  166,  51  Pac.  209,  75 
Am.  St.  Rep.  889;  Stanley  Co. 
Com'rs  v.  I  oles,  96  Fed.  284,  37  C. 
C.  A.  484;  State  v.  Frank,   00  Neb. 

E  !  X.  W.  74;  S.  C.  on  rehear- 
ing, 61  Neb.  679,  85  X.  W.  956; 
Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  64 
Fed  165. 

Where  it  appeared  upon  the  jour- 
nals of  the  house  of  representatives 
that  the  bill  did  not  receive  the 
rote  on  its  third  reading 
in  that  body,  but  did  upon  its  final 
passage  by  the  house  after  its  re- 
turn from  the  senate  with  amend- 
ments, it  was  held  a  substantial 
compliance.  Bond  Debt  Cases,  12 
SL  C.  200. 

In  Osburn  v.  Staley,  5  W.  Va.  85,  it 
appeared  that  the  full  senate  had 
•consisted    of    twenty-two     mem- 


liters;  that  one  afterwards  resigned. 
On  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  in 
quest ii'ii.  after  such  resignation, 
there  were  eleven  votes  in  its  favor, 
and  it  was  declared  passed  and  by 
a  majority  of  the  members  elected. 
Held,  that  there  was  doubt  whether 
the  vote  was  not  sufficient,  and  the 
act  was  sustained  by  resolving  the 
doubt  in  favor  of  its  validity. 

In  State  v.  Francis,  26  Kan.  724,  the 
act  in  question  was  passed  in  the 
bouse  by  a  vote  in  its  favor,  includ- 
ing, to  make  the  required  ma- 
jority, the  votes  of  four  members 
(who  were  identified)  beyond  the 
maximum  membership  fixed  by 
the  constitution;  held  void. 

Under  the  Michigan  constitu- 
tion, requiring  on  the  final  pa 
of  a  bill  a  majority  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected,  it  was  held  that  the 
court  would  not  enter  into  an  in- 
quiry whether  de  facto  members 
were  properly  elected.  1'eople  v. 
Mahaney,  13  Mich.  481. 

In  Turley  v.  County  of  Logan,  17 
111.  153,  it  was  said  by  the  court 
that  "  while  the  absence  of  facts  in 
the  journals  may  rebut  the  j  re- 
sumption raised  by  the  signatures 
of  the  proper  officers,  and  the  pub- 
lication of  the  act  as  a  law.  still  we 
cannot  doubt  the  power  of  the 
same  legislature,  at  the  same  or  a 
subsequent  session,  to  correct  its 
own  journals  by  amendments 
which  show  the  true  facts  as  they 
actually  occurred,  when  they  are 
satisfied  that  by  neglect  or  design 
the  truth  has  been  omitted  or  sup- 
pressed." 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  9& 

votes.15  "Where  the  journal  showed  that  the  act  in  question 
was  passed  by  a  vote  of  G4  yeas  to  7  nays,  but  gave  the 
names  of  only  62  voting  in  the  affirmative,  the  act  was 
held  not  impeached,  though  G3  votes  were  required  for  a 
constitutional  majority.16  As  to  what  is  the  "final  passage 
of  a  bill "  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  there  is 
a  difference  of  opinion.  Some  courts  hold  that  the  final 
passage  of  a  bill  is  when  it  is  first  passed  in  each  house, 
and  that  concurrence  in  subsequent  amendments  made  by 
the  other  house,  or  in  the  report  of  a  conference  committee, 
may  be  made  without  a  yea  and  nay  vote,  and  without  en- 
tering the  result  in  the  journals.17  Other  courts  hold  that 
it  is  the  last  vote  in  each  house  which  gives  efficacy  to  the 
bill.18 

In  Miller  v.  State,19  Thurman,  C.  J.,  used  this  emphatic 
language:  "That  the  power  to  make  laws  is  vested  in  the 
assembly  alone,  and  that  no  act  has  any  force  that  was  not 
passed  by  the  number  of  votes  required  by  the  constitution, 
are  nearly  or  quite  self-evident  propositions.     These  essen- 

15  Smathers  v.  Com'rs,  125  N.  C.  journal,  does  not  apply  to  amend- 

4S0,  84  S.  E.  554;  New  Hannover  ments  or  the  report  of  conference 

Co.  Com'rs  v.  Derossat,  129  N.  C.  committees.     If  so,  then  no  matter 

275,  40  S.  E.  43;  Debnam  v.  Chitty,  how   material  the  change,  a  ma- 

131  N.  C.  657,  43  S.  E.  3.  jority  vote  of  a  quorum  may  pass 

16Homzighausen   v.   Knoche,  58  the  bill.   The  words  '  final  passage,' 

Kan.  646,  50  Pac.  879.  as  used  in  our  constitution,  mean 

17  State  v.  Corbett,  61  Ark.  226,  32  final  passage.     They  do  not  mean 

S.  W.  686;  Brake  v.  Collison,  122  some  passage  before  the  final  one, 

Fed.  722;  Hull  v.  Miller,  4  Neb.  503.  but  the  last  one.   They  do  not  mean 

ls  Norman  v.  Ky.  Board  of  Man-  the  passage  of  a  part  of  a  bill,  or 

agers,  93  Ky.  537,  20  S.  W.  901,  18  what  is  first  introduced,  and  which 

L.  R.  A.  556.     The  court  says:  "It  may  by  reason  of  amendments  be- 

is  true  it  has  been  held  that  the  come  the  least  important.     If  so, 

'final  passage' of  a  bill  means  when  then  the  body  may  pass  what  is 

it   first  passes  the  body,  and  not  practically  a  new  bill  in  a  manner 

when  it  returns  to  it,  after  amend-  counter    to   both    the  letter    and 

ment,  for  adoption;  and  it  is  said  spirit  of  the  constitution."  pp.544, 

that  the  constitutional  provision  as  545. 

to  the  number  of  votes,  and  the  193  Ohio  St.  475 
entry  of  the  yea  and  nay  vote  on  the 


.'  1  1   N  111  Ml   N  1     OF     LAWS. 

tials  relate   to    the  authority    l>y  whirl),  rather  than   to  the 
mode  in  which,  laws  are  to  be  made." 

:»l  r.»  .  Reqnired  reading,  printing  and  reference  <>!' 
hills.—  The  readings  required  of  hills  are  intended  to  afford 
opportunities  For  deliberate  consideration  of  them  in  detail, 
and  for  amendment.20  Hence,  amendments  are  admissible 
during  the  progress  of  a  bill  through  the  process  of  enact- 
ment; they  are  not  subject  to  the  same  rule  as  bills  in  re- 
gard  to  the  number  of  readings.  They  must  be  germane 
the  subject  of  the  bill,  and  are  not  required  to  be  read 
three  times.21  And  this  rule  is  held  to  apply  though  the 
amendment  consists  in  the  substitution  of  a  new  bill  on  the 
same  subject.22  Nordoes  concurrence  by  one  house  in  amend- 
ments made  by  the  other  require  the  yeas  and  nays,  and 
ir  entry  on  the  journal,  under  the  provision  for  these 
things  on  the  final  passage  of  hills. 2:1 

It  is  not  accessary  that  everything  which  is  to  become 
law  by  the  adoption  of  a  hill  he  read.  Thus  a  bill  may  be 
passed  for  the  adoption  of  the  common  law,  and  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  set  it  forth  in  the  hill.  And  where  a 
bill  was  passed  adopting  a  revised  code,  prepared  by  a  com- 
mission, it  was  held  unnecessary  to  read  the  code  referred 
to  and  adopted.24  An  act  was  held  valid  which  provided 
for  the  punishment  as  at  common  law  of  misdemeanors  for 
which  no  punishment  was  provided  by  statute.25 

The  requirement  that  bills  be  read  on  different  days  will 

ite  v.  Piatt,  2  S.  C.  150,  16  be  read  the  prescribed  number  of 

Am.  Rep.  647.  times. 

tiller  v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475;  22  Nelson  v.  Haywood  County,  91 

People    v.    Wallace,    70    111.    680;  Term.  596.  20  S.  W.  1;  Cantini  v. 

EL  C.  1"0,  16  Am.  Tillman,  54  Fed.  969;  Brake  v.  Col- 

p,  847;  Illinois  Central  R  R.  Co.  lison,  122  Fed.  722. 

v.  People,  143  111.  434,  33  N.  E.  173,  23  Hull  v.  Miller,  4  Neb.  503;  ante, 

19  L.  P.  A.  119;  Gilliland  v.  Baptist  §  52,  note  9a 

l  Ihurch,  33  S.  C.  164,  11  S.  E.  684;  24  Central  of  Georgia  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Hooker,  36  Fla,  358,  18  So.  State,  104  Ga.  831,  31  S.  E.  531,  42 

In  Glenn  v.  Wray,  126  N.  < '.  L.  P.  A.  518. 

36  &   I'..  167,  it  is  held  that  if  2* Dew  v.  Cunningham,  28  Ala. 

■ndmentis  material  it  must  471,  65  Am.  Dec.  362;  Dane  v.  Mc- 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  95 

not  prevent  one  house  from  reading  a  bill  the  first  time  on 
the  same  day  it  was  read  the  third  time  and  passed  in  the 
other  house.-6  Nor  is  it  any  objection  that  one  of  the  read- 
ings was  on  the  day  of  final  adjournment.27  Where  a  bill 
is  vetoed  and  reconsidered  it  may  be  passed  at  once,  and  is 
not  required  to  go  through  the  prescribed  readings  as  if 
an  original  bill.28  Of  course  if  the  journals  show  that  the 
act  was  not  read  as  required,  it  will  be  void.29 

The  constitution  of  Colorado  provides  that  "no  bill  shall 
be  considered  or  become  a  law  unless  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee, returned  therefrom,  and  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
members."30  It  has  been  held  that  this  does  not  require  a 
bill  to  be  printed  before  it  is  read.31  The  same  constitution 
provides  that  all  substantial  amendments  shall  be  printed 
for  the  use  of  the  members  before  the  final  vote  is  taken  on 
the  bill.  It  is  held  that  this  provision  is  mandatory;  that 
whether  an  amendment  is  substantial  is  a  question  for  the 
courts,  and  if  the  provision  is  not  complied  with  the  act  is 
void.32 

§  55  (50).  What  shall  be  sufficient  cause  for  suspending 
the  rule  requiring  the  readings  on  different  days  is  solely 

Arthur,    57    Ala.    454;    People    v.  N.  C.  308,  31  S.  E.  481;  Smathers  v. 

Whipple,  47  Cal.  592;  Bibb  County  Commissioners,   125  N.  C.  480,  34 

Loan  Ass'n  v.  Richards,  21  Ga.  592.  S.  E.  554;  Hooker  v.  Greenville,  130 

26  Chicot  Co.   v.  Da  vies.  40  Ark.  N.  C.  472,  42  S.  E.  141.     Where  a 

200;  State  v.  Crawford.  35  id.  237.  city  charter  required  every  ordi- 

27Gilliland  v.  Baptist  Church,  33  nance  to  be  read  three  several  times 

S.  C.  1G4,  11  S.  E.  684.  before  it  became  a  law,  adopting 

28  Lake  v.  Ocean  City,  62  N.  J.  L.  the  language  of  the  constitution, 
160.  41  Atl.  427.  In  People  v.  Luby,  and  the  practical  construction  of 
59  Mich.  89,  57  N.  W.  1092,  it  was  the  constitution  by  the  legislature 
held  that  an  objection  that  an  act  had  been  that  one  of  the  readings 
was  not  read  in  full  on  the  first  might  be  by  title,  it  was  held  that 
and  second  readings  would  not  be  the  charter  was  intended  to  have 
considered  when  made  for  the  first  the  same  construction.  State  v. 
time  on  appeal.  Camden,  58  N.  J.  L.  515, 33  Atl.  846. 

29  Ante,  §  52,  note  98;  Stanley  Co.  3°  Art,  5,  sec.  20. 

Com'rs  v.  Snuggs,  121  N.  C.  394,  28  31  Mass.  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Col. 

S.  E.  539,  39  L.  R.  A.  439;  Charlotte  L.  &  T.  Co.,  20  Colo.  1,  36  Pac.  793. 

v.  Shepard,  122  N,  C.  602,  29  S.  E.  82  Tn  re  House  Bill  250,  26  Colo 

842:  Wilkes  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Call,  123  234,  57  Pac.  49. 


1    N  A  t '  I  Ml    \  I'     OF     LAWS. 

•i  the  disoretioD  of  the  legislative  body  voting  it,  where 
power  to  dispense  with  it  is  given,  and  such  cause  need  not 
appear  upon  the  journals.88  Tin-  house  may,  by  one  order 
or  resolution,  dispense  with  the  rule  for  two  or  more  bills.™ 
It  is  not  for  the  courts  to  say  how  the  power  shall  be  exer- 
i  ised. 

The  requirement  that  there  be  three  readings  and  that 
they  occur  on  three  different  days,  being  intended  to  pre- 
vent hasty  and  imprudent  legislation,  ought  on  principle  to 
be,  and  by   the  weight  of  authority  is,  regarded  as  manda- 

'  In  (  duo  it  seems  to  be  regarded  as  directo^.36 
§  56  (51).  Necessity  of  signature  of  presiding  ollicers.— 
Where  the  constitution  requires  every  bill  passed  to  be 
signed  by  the  presiding  officers  of  the  respective  houses,  it 
is  mandatory,  and  cannot  be  dispensed  with  where  the 
journals  are  not  records,  and  the  act  when  passed  and  duly 
authenticated  is  conclusive  as  a  record."     Where  the   fact 

ning  is  required  to  be  entered  on  the  journals,  the  pro- 
vision is  held  to  be  mandatory  by  some  courts, s  and  direct- 
ory by  others.'9  Where  the  constitution  provides  for  a 
speaker  pro  A///.,  he  may  sign  bills.40  If  the  constitution 
does  not  require  their  signing,  it  is  not  deemed  essential.11 
And  since  it  is  no  part  of  the  essential  process  of  legislation, 
and  is  designed  solely  to  verify  the  passage  of  the  bill  or 
resolution,  where  the  legislative  journals  and  files  are  rec- 
ords of  which  the  court  takes  judicial  notice,  or  which  may 

M  Hull  v.  Miller,  4  Neb.  503.  Governor,    23    Mo.    364;     Cooley's 

ople  v.  County  of  Glenn,  100  Const.  Lim.  153;    Burrough,  Pub. 

Cal.  41'J,  35  Pac.  302,  38   Am.  St.  Securities,  425.     And  see  OTJa;a  v. 

Rep.  .  State,  121  Ala.  23,  25  So.  622,  where 

19;  Cooley,  Const.  L.  170.  the  question  was  whether  the  jour- 

3  Ohio  St.  481;  nal  could  be  construed  as  showing 

Pirn  v.  Nicholson,  6  id.  178.  the  signing  of  the  bill  in  question. 

37  State  v.  Howell,  26  Nev.  93,  64  39  In  re  Roberts,  5  Colo.  525;  State 
Pac.  46ft    See  Wrought  Iron  Range  v.  Long,  21  Mont.  26,  52  Pac.  645. 
Co.  v.  Carver,  118  N.  C.  828,  24  S.  E.  40  Robertson  v.  State,  130  Ala.  164, 

30  So.  494 

38  People  v.  Commissioners,  54  41  Spe<  v  v.  Plank  Road  Co.,  22  Pa. 
N.  Y.  876;  Pacific  Pu  R.  Co.  v.  The     St.  :;;■■;. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  97 

be  brought  to  judicial  notice,  and  from  them  it  plainly  ap- 
pears that  the  bill  or  resolution,  not  signed  by  one  or  both 
of  the  presiding  officers,  was  regularly  considered  and  passed, 
there  is  much  reason  to  sustain  it  as  valid  notwithstanding 
the  absence  of  those  signatures.  If  that  evidence  will  pre- 
vail to  avoid  a  statute  erroneously  signed  by  them,  it  should 
suffice  to  sustain  one  which  was  duly  passed,  though  lack- 
ing that  particular  verification,  if  the  other  record  evidence 
sufficiently  shows  the  essential  proceedings.42  The  signature 
of  the  presiding  officer  is  in  such  cases  only  a  certificate  to 
the  governor  that  the  bill  or  resolution  has  passed  the  requi- 
site number  of  readings,  and  been  adopted  by  the  constitu- 
tional majority  of  the  house  over  which  he  presides.  But 
where  the  vote  must  be  determined  by  the  journals,  the  ab- 
sence of  the  signatures  of  the  presiding  officers  is  not  fatal, 
if  the  governor  has  signed  the  bill,  for  it  will  be  presumed 
that  the  governor  had  sufficient  evidence,  the  assurance 
which  the  journals  afford  to  the  court,  of  its  passage  at  the 
time  of  his  approval. 

§  57  (52).  How  the  question  of  the  due  passage  or  en- 
actment of  statutes  is  tried. —  The  court  takes  judicial  no- 
tice of  all  general  laws.  This  is  a  cardinal  rule,  and  neces- 
sarily includes  cognizance  of  whatever  must  be  considered 
in  determining  what  the  law  is;  not  because  it  is  the  prerog- 
ative of  the  courts  arbitrarily  to  determine  what  are  the 
public  statutes,  nor  because  they  are  required  or  supposed 
to  have  a  knowledge  of  those  laws  without  evidence  of  them, 
but  because  they  have  the  means,  and  it  is  their  duty,  to 
make  themselves  acquainted  with  them.43  Whatever  ex- 
trinsic facts  are  proper  to  be  considered,  the  courts  may 
have  recourse  to  aid  them  in  their  duty  to  ascertain  the 
law.  Judicial  knowledge  takes  in  its  whole  range  and  scope 
at  once;  it  embraces  simultaneously,  in  contemplation  of 

«  Hull  v.  Miller,  4  Neb.  503;  Cot-  ton,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Odum,  53 Tex. 
trell  v.  State,  9  Neb.  128;  Conimis-    313.     ■ 

sioners  v.  Higginbotham,  17  Kan.        43  Eld  v.  Gorham,  20  Conn.  8. 
75;  State  v.  Glenn,  18  Nev.  39;  Hous- 

7 


i:.vu'iMr.N  r  OF   laws. 

law,  all  the  f;uts  to  which  it  extends.     Tt  would  be  a  sole- 
cism to  hold  that  a  statute  regularly  authenticated  Iajprima 
valid,  if  there  exists  facts  of  which  the  court  must  take 
judicial  notice  showing  it  to  be  void. 

On  prinoiple  and  the  weight  of  authority  the  courts  tako 
judicial  notice  of  the  legislative  journals.  If  they  invali- 
date a  statute  it  is  not  apparently  valid,  for  in  every  view  of 
it  the  court  perceives  what  impugns  it  and  prevents  it  hav- 

orce.  And  if  the  court  has  other  sources  of  informa- 
tion which  explored  disclose  facts  fatal  to  an  act,  it  is  void 
from  the  b  sginning,  void  on  its  face;  for  what  is  manifest 
to  the  judicial  mind  is  legally  palpable  to  the  whole  public, 
can  plead  ignorance  of  it.  It  is,  however,  held  in 
some  of  the  st;ites  that  the  courts  do  not  take  such  judicial 
notice  of  legislative  journals  and  extrinsic  facts.  In  Grob  v. 
Cushman,41  the  court  says:  "It  is  true  that  they  are  public 
records,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  within  the  knowledge  of  the  courts  like  public  laws. 
Like  other  r<  cords  and  public  documents  the)-  should  be 
brought  before  the  court  as  evidence.  But  when  offered 
they  prove  their  own  authenticity.  Until  so  produced  they 
cannot  be  regarded  by  the  courts."  It  is  held  in  that  state 
not  to  be  the  province  of  the  court,  at  the  suggestion  or  re- 
quest of  counsel,  to  explore  the  journals  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  manner  in  which  a  law  duly  certified  went 
through  the  legislature  and  into  the  hands  of  the  governor.45 

i  3  (53).  These  cases  came  under  review  in  the  supremo 
court  of  the  United  States  in  Town  of  South  Ottawa  v.  Per- 
kins,4" and    that  court  was  in  doubt  and  divided  on   the 

tion  whether  by  the  state  decision  the  validity  of  a  stat- 
ute was  a  conclusion  of  law  or  fact,  when  the  statute,  prop- 
erly authenticated,   is  avoided  by  the  legislative  journals 

ing  it  was  not  constitutionally  enacted.     The  majority, 

M  45  I1L  124,  125;  Illinois  Central  «  Illinois    Central    R,    R.   Co.  v. 

R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wren,  43  111.  77;   Lar-  Wren,  43  III.  77;   Cantrell  v.  Seav- 

rison  v.  Peoria,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  77  id.  erns.  168  111.  10.1,  48  N.  E.  186. 

18;  People  v.  De  Wolf,  02  111.  263.  <6  94  U.  S.  200,  24  L.  EA  154. 


ENACTMENT   OF   LAWS.  99 

by  Bradley,  J.,  say:  "  In  our  judgment  it  was  not  necessary 
to  have  raised  an  issue  on  the  subject,  except  by  demurrer 
to  the  declaration.  The  court  is  bound  to  know  the  law 
without  taking  the  advice  of  a  jury  on  the  subject.  When 
once  it  became  a  settled  construction  of  the  constitution  of 
Illinois  that  no  act  can  be  deemed  a  valid  law  unless  by  the 
journals  of  the  legislature  it  appears  to  have  been  regularly 
passed  by  both  houses,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  courts  to 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  journal  entries  in  that  regard. 
The  courts  of  Illinois  may  decline  to  take  that  trouble,  un- 
less the  parties  bring  the  matter  to  their  attention ,  but  on 
general  principles  the  question  as  to  the  existence  of  a  law 
is  a  judicial  one.  and  must  be  so  regarded  by  the  courts  of 
the  United  States."  47 

In  a  recent  case  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States 
says:  "  As  a  statute  duly  certified  is  presumed  to  have  been 
duly  passed  until  the  contrary  appears  (a  presumption  aris- 
ing- in  favor  of  the  law  as  printed  by  authority,  and,  in  a 
higher  degree,  of  the  original  on  file  in  the  proper  reposito^), 
it  would  seem  to  follow  that  wherever  a  suit  comes  to  issue, 
whether  in  the  court  below  or  in  the  higher  tribunal,  an 
objection  resting  on  the  failure  of  the  legislature  to  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  should  be  so  pre- 
sented that  the  adverse  party  may  have  opportunity  to  con- 
trovert the  allegations  and  to  prove  by  the  record  due  con- 
formity with  the  constitutional  requirements."  48  It  is  also 
said  in  the  same  case  that  "  it  has  often  been  held  by  state 
courts  that  evidence  of  the  contents  of  legislative  journals, 
which  has  not  been  produced  and  made  part  of  the  case  in 
the  court  below,  will  not  be  considered  on  appeal."  49 

47  Post  v.  Supervisors,  105  U.  S.  43  111.  77;  Bedard  v.  Hall,  44  111.  91; 
667.                                            -  Greb  v.  Cushman,  45  111.  119;  Hin- 

48  In  re  Duncan,  139  U.  S.  449,  soldt  v.  Petersburg,  63  111.  157;  Au- 
457,  458,  11  S.  C.  Rep.  573,  35  L.  Ed.  ditor  v.  Haycraft,  14  Bush,  284; 
219;  and  see  State  v.Wray,  109  Mo.  Bradley  v.  West.  60  Mo.  33.  In 
594,  19  S.  W.  86.  State  v.  Brown,  33  S.  C.  151, 11  S.  E. 

49  Citing  the  following  cases:  641,  the  supreme  court  refused  to 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wren,  consider  the  journals  because  they 


1    \  At    I  Ml    \  I      OF     LAW  S. 


But  the  genera]  rule  undoubtedly  is  that  the  courts  of 
evi  rv  grade  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  journals  and  of 
the  enrolled  act  and  indorsements  thereon.80  Whether  an 
appellate  court  will  consider  an  objection  to  tho  manner  of 
passing  a  statute,  not  made  in  the  lower  court,  is  another 
quest  ion. 

§59  (54).  The  investigation  upon  an  objection  that  an 
act  was  unconstitutionally  passed  may  be  expected  to  be 
made  primarily  by  the  parties;  they  will  desire  to  be  heard 
in  resp<  at  to  the  source  and  the  evidentiary  quality  of  in- 
formation obtained,  and  the  effect  of  facts  considered. 
tless  this  interest  of  the  parties,  and  a  conservatism  of 
ourts  restraining  them  from  a  consideration  of  any  im- 
portant ingredient  of  a  case  without  notice  to  the  parties, 
and  the  aid  of  their  counsel,  have  induced  the  course  of  de- 
m  in  Illinois  and  in  some  other  slates  in  which  it  is  held 
that  the  courts  will  not  take  judicial  notice  of  the  legis- 
lative journals,  though  they  are  required  by  tho  constitu- 
tion to  be  kept,  and  will  be  considered  only  when  brought 
re  the  court  as  evidence.51  It  has  been  intimated  in 
some  cases   that  the  objection  should  be  made   by  plea/'2 

were  not  ollered  in  evidence  below.  County  v.  Isenring,  109  Wis.  9,  85 

»ple  v.  Luby,  99  Mich.  80,  57  N.  W.  131,  53  L.  R.  A.  635.     In  the 

X.  W.   1092,  the  court  says  it  will  last  case  the  court  says:  "  It  must 

not   consider  an  objection  to  the  be  understood  that  when  the  e.xist- 

manner  of  passing  an  act,  when  it  ence  or  contents  of  a  statute  are 

le  for  the  first  time  on  ap-  called  in  question,  no  issue  of  fact 

peal.  is  presented  for  a  trial  upon  the 

Henderson  v.  State,  94  Ala,  95,  evidence,  but  the  court,  whether 

..  332;  Davis  v.  Whidden,  117  one  of  original  or  appellate  juris- 

19    Pac.    7'i'i:    State    v.  diction,    must    necessarily    decide 


i8,    18    So.    767; 
(i  v.  Knoche,  58  Kan. 
I  v.  Gall, 
.  .  Ann.  959,  lo  So.  5 


the  question  the  same  as  it  decides 
any  other  question  of  law." 

■'  Mint  v.  Winona,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
31  Minn.  472,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 


Smith.  44  Ohio  St.  348,  7  N.  E.  -147;     Cas.  436,  18  N.  \V.  Halloa 


v.    Price,  8   Ohio  C.   C.   25; 
.J    Or&   34 
\  l:  McDonald  v.  State.  80  W  a. 
50  N.  W.  185;   In  re   Ryan,  80    Lean,  195,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4620. 
:-il.  50  N.  W.  1*7;  Milwaukee 


v.  Black,  17  Neb.  389,  23  N.  W.  3. 

■-'  People  v.  Supervisors,  8  N.  Y. 
317;  Falconer  v.   Campbell,  2  Mo 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  101 

which  implies  that  the  validity  may  be  made  to  depend  on 
the  determination  of  an  issue  of  fact.  But  this  notion  has 
been  abandoned  in  the  court  in  which  it  originated,  and 
never  obtained  a  footing  in  any  other  jurisdiction.53  The 
court  is  required  to  take  notice  ex  officio  of  general  laws;  its 
peculiar  function  is  to  determine  what  the  law  is,  and  ex- 
pound it;  therefore  it  would  be  at  once  absurd  and  incon- 
venient to  submit  such  a  question  to  a  jury.  It  is  more 
logical  and  more  consistent  with  principle  to  treat  the  evi- 
dence, so  called,  produced  upon  such  an  objection  as  being 
presented  for  the  information  of  the  court  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  law-books  are  read ;  facts  are  only  incidental 
to  the  research,  as  when  a  court  must  deal  with  them  to 
some  extent,  to  learn  if  authorities  cited  are  authentic.  In 
Gardner  v.  The  Collector,'4  Miller,  J.,  said  of  the  public 
statute  in  question:  "  It  is  one  of  which  the  court  takes  ju- 
dicial notice,  without  proof,  and  therefore  the  use  of  the 
words  '  extrinsic  evidence  '  is  inappropriate.  Such  statutes 
are  not  proved  as  issues  of  fact  as  private  statutes  are." 

§  60  (55).  Approval  by  executive. —  The  legislative  power 
is  generally  in  terms  vested  by  the  organic  law  in  the  legis- 
lature or  general  assembly  consisting  of  two  branches; 
though  in  acts  of  congress  organizing  territorial  govern- 
ments it  has  been  usual  to  vest  it  in  the  governor  and  gen- 
eral assembly.  He.  is  thus  made  a  constituent  of  the  legis- 
lature, as  the  king  in  the  English  system  is  a  constituent  of 
parliament.  The  legislative  practice,  however,  is  the  same 
in  the  territories  as  in  the  states,  and  the  same  as  in  parlia- 
ment, as  to  the  part  taken  by  the  executive  in  the  enactment 
of  laws.  The  two  houses  formulate  and  adopt  in  the  first 
instance  all  legislative  measures,  and  the  executive  acts 
merely  to  approve  or  disapprove  these  measures.  His  func- 
tion is  of  the  same  nature  as  that  of  members  of  the  two 
houses,  except  that  it  is  negative,  and  that  by  pursuing  the 

"People  v.  Devlin,  33  N.  Y.  269,  missioners,  54  N.  Y.  276;  State  ex 
88  Am.  Dec.  377;  People  v.  Com-    rel.  v.  Foote,  11  Wis.  11. 

M  6  Wall.  50fc«,  18  L.  Ed.  890. 


ENAO'J  Ml  N  t    OF     LAWS. 


course  prescribed  in  the  paramount  law  arts  may  acquire 
the  force  of  laws  without  his  concurrence.88 

In    New  \  ork  it  is  hold  that  after  the  final  adjournment 


.  People  v.  Bowen,  31  N.  Y.  520 

;.  s  (1,80  Barb.  84),  Denio,  J., 

thus  discusses  the    nature  of    the 

r  of  the  exeoutive  in 

the  enactment  of  laws:  "The  ques- 
i  ion  as  to  the  nature  of  the  govern- 
or's agenoy  raises,  I  think,  rather 
a  dispute  about  terms  than  one 
concerning  the  substance  of  tilings. 
Whatever  the  authority  touching 
the  enactment  of  laws,  with  which 
the  governor  is  clothed,  shall  be 
called,  it  is  of  the  same  general  nat- 
ure with  that  which  is  exercised  by 
themembersof  the  two  houses.  He 
is  to  consider  as  to  the  constitu- 
tionality, justice  and  public  exped- 
iency of  such  legislative  measures 
as  .-hall  have  been  agreed  upon  by 
the  two  houses,  by  the  ordinary 
majorities,  and  be  presented  to 
him:  and  he  is  to  accord  or  with- 
hold his  approbation  according  to 
the  result  of  his  deliberations. 
This  is  plainly  the  function  of  a 
legislator.     The  sovereign  of  Eng- 

who  is  charged  with  the 
same  duty  in  respect  to  acts  of 
parliament,  is  considered  to  be  a 
i  part  of  the  supreme 
legislative  power.  1  Bl.  Com.  2G1. 
Jt  is  true  that  his  determination 
to  disapprove  a  bill  deprives  it  of 
any  effect,  while  one  disallowed 
by  the  governor  may  yet  be  estab- 

1   l>y  an   extraordinary    con- 

nce  of  votes  in  the  houses, 
though  the    action    of    the 

tive    is    less    potential    here 

in    England,  the  quality  of 

the  act,  namely,  deliberating  and 


determining  upon  t ho  propriety  of 
laws  proposed  to  be  enacted,  is 
precisely  the  same.  Besides  mak- 
ing his  determination  the  gov- 
ernor is  required,  in  case  it  is  un- 
favorable to  the  law,  to  submit  his 
objections  to  the  legislature  which 
is  to  examine  them,  and  again 
j  ass  upon  them  in  the  light  of 
the  discussion  which  they  have 
thus  undergone.  To  my  mind  it 
is  clear  that  this  involves  a  partici- 
pation on  the  part  of  the  governor 
with  the  two  houses  of  the  legisla- 
ture in  the  enactment  of  laws.  It 
would  not  be  correct  language  to 
say  that  he  forms  a  branch  of  the 
legislature,  for  the  constitution  has 
limited  that  designation  to  the  sen- 
ate and  assembly;  but  it  would  be 
equally  incorrect  to  affirm  that  the 
sanction  which  he  is  required  to 
^ive  to  or  withhold  from  bills  be- 
fore they  can  become  operative 
does  not  render  him  a  participator 
in  the  function  of  making  laws. 
The  forty-seventh  number  of  'The 
alisi,"  written  by  Mr.  .Madison, 
treats  of  the  separation  of  the  great 
departments  of  the  government, 
and  it  is  there  shown  that  the  con- 
currence of  the  executive  magis- 
trate with  the  proper  legislature 
in  the  enactment  of  laws  as  ar- 
ranged in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  not,  in  spirit,  a  vio- 
lation of  the  principle,  so  strongly 
insisted  upon  by  Montesquieu  and 
other  writers  upon  constitutional 
government,  that  constitutional 
liberty  cannot  exist  where  the  leg- 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


103 


of  the  legislature  the  governor  may  act  upon  bills  submitted 
to  him.56  Such  seems  to  have  been  the  practice  sanctioned 
by  judicial  decision  under  similar  constitutional  provisions 


islative  and  executive  powers  are 
united  in  the  same  person.  Mr. 
Madison  considers  the  qualified 
veto  accorded  to  the  president  as 
effecting  a  partial  distribution  of 
the  legislative  authority  between 
him  and  the  congress,  but  argues 
that  it  is  not  objectionable,  be- 
cause neither  authority  can,  in  any 
case,  exercise  the  whole  power  of 
the  other.  He  shows,  also,  that  in 
certain  states,  in  the  constitutions 
of  which  the  principle  of  Montes- 
quieu is  laid  down  in  terms  with 
great  positiveness,  there  is  an  in- 
termingling of  the  legislative  and 
executive  departments  in  the  act- 
ual arrangement  of  the  details  of 
government.  Our  own  constitu- 
tion furnishes  another  example; 
for  though  it  is  declared  that  the 
whole  legislative  authority  shall  be 
vested  in  the  senate  and  assembly, 
still  no  law  can  be  enacted  which 
has  not  been  submitted  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  governor.  His  agency 
cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as 
merely  a  power  to  refer  back  bills 
for  further  consideration  by  the 
legislature.  His  approval  is  re- 
garded as  generally  essential  to  the 
enactment  of  laws,  though  his  dis- 
approval is  not  necessarily  fatal  to 
them,  but  may  be  overcome,  where 
the  legislature,  upon  a  considera- 
tion of  his  objections,  shall  repass 
them  by  an  extraordinary  major- 
ity." 

•'«  People  v.  Bowen,  21  N.  Y.  520. 
Denio,  J.,  continuing  the  opinion 
irom  which  we  quoted  in  the  last 


note,  said  that,  in  his  opinion,  "  it 
is  not  a  just  construction  of  the 
power  intrusted  to  the  governor  to 
consider  it  as  merely  an  authority 
to  require  a  further  consideration 
of  bills  which  he  shall  disapprove. 
In  one  respect  the  effect  of  the 
governor's  determination  is  differ- 
ent when  the  legislature  is  in  ses- 
sion and  when  it  is  not.  In  the 
latter  case,  if  he  approves,  the 
concurrence  of  the  whole  law- 
making power  is  secured,  pre- 
cisely as  though  the  legislature 
was  in  session.  The  bill  has  re- 
ceived the  concurrence  of  all  the 
functionaries  which  the  constitu- 
tion requires  shall  unite  in  enact- 
ing a  perfect  law.  He  cannot 
state  objections,  for  there  is  no 
public  body  in  existence  to  whom 
they  can  be  submitted.  If  he  neg- 
lect to  act,  which  he  will  of  course 
do  if  the  bill  is  disapproved  of  by 
him,  it  falls  to  the  ground  by  the  ex- 
press provisions  of  the  constitution, 
for  the  grounds  of  his  disapproval 
cannot  be  passed  upon  by  the  legis- 
lature. But  if  the  proposed  law 
meets  with  his  approval,  there  is 
no  reason  why  the  public  will,  ex- 
pressed by  all  the  official  bodies 
and  persons  with  whom  the  con- 
stitution has  intrusted  the  prov- 
ince of  making  Jaws,  should  fail  of 
effect. 

"It  has  been  argued  that,  as  the 
governor  cannot,  in  the  recess  of 
the  legislature,  compel  the  recon- 
sideration of  bills  to  which  he  is 
unwilling  to  yield  his  consent,  he 


[04 


EN  \'   i  MEN  r    OF    I.  W\  s. 


in  Georgia,"  Illinois,88  Louisiana,58  Maryland,80  Michigan,81 
and  Mississippi.88  It  is  held  that  the  president  may  approve 
a  bill  during  a  recess  of  congress.81 

A  bill  wassigned  by  the  presiding  officers  and  approved 
by  the  governor  on  the  second  page  of  the  bill,  at  the  end 
tion  2  instead  of  at  the  end  of  the  bill.  The  governor, 
on  discovering  this,  erased  the  signatures  and  sent  the  bill 
to  be  re-signed  by  the  presiding  officers,  intending  to  sign 
after  them.  The  bill  wasagain  signed  by  the  presiding  offi- 
cers, but,  in  the  confusion  attending  the  close  of  the  session, 
overnor  neglected  to  do  so,  and  the  bill  was  filed  with 
the  secretary  of  state  without  being  again  signed  by  the 
governor.  In  a  message  to  the  senate,  where  the  bill  origi- 
nated,  the  governor  announced  that  he  had  approved  of  the 
bill.  It  was  held  that  it  was  immaterial  where  on  the  bill 
the  signatures  were  placed,  that  the  bill  became  a  law  when 
approved,  and  that  the  subsequent  acts  did  not  annul  it.'1 


might  be  induced  to  approve  those 
which  are,  in  some  respects,  objec- 

( I ile,  but  which  contain  other 
provisions  important  to  the  public 
welfare.  This  argument  is  not 
without  force,  but  I  think  it  should 
be  assumed  that  he  would  never 
interpose  a  veto  to  a  bill  which  he 
did  not  conscientiously  believe 
ought  not  to  become  a  law,  and 
thai  he  would  never  approve  one 
to  which  such  objection,  in  his 
opinion,  existed.  Should  a  bill  of 
the  character  suggested  be  left  in 
his  hands  al  the  a  Ijournment,  the 
remedy  for   the   public  inconven- 

e,  which  might  be  occasioned 
by  the  failure  to  enact  the  sound 
parts,  would  be  found  in  the  power 
to  again  call  the  legislature  to- 
r.  which  is  vested  in  him  for 
this  and  the  like  occasions."' 

'■■"  Solomon  v.  Commissioners,  41 

I  57. 


58  Const.  1848,  art.  4,  §  21;  Seven 
Hickory  v.  Ellery,  103  U.  S.  423,  26 
]..  Ed.  435. 

69  State  v.  Fagan,  22  La.  Ann. 
545. 

*>°Lankford  v.  County  Com'rs,  73 
Md.  105,  20  Atl.  1017,  11  L  R.  A. 
491. 

« Detroit  v.  Chapin,  108  Mich. 
136,  66  N.  W.  587,  37  L.  R.  A.  391. 

u-  State  v.  Supervisors,  64  Miss. 
365.  Contra,  Fowler  v.  Pierce,  2 
Cal.  165. 

<>3  La  Arba  Silver  Min.  Co.  v. 
United  States,  175  U.  S.  423,  20  S. 
C.  Rep.  168,  44  I,  Ed.  223. 

11  National  Land  &  Loan  Co. 
v.  Mead,  60  Vt.  257,  14  Atl.  689. 
The  court  says:  "The  bill  passed 
both  the  senate  and  the  house, 
was  presented  to  the  governor, 
was  carefully  examined  by  him, 
and  was  by  him  approved  and 
signed    intentionally    and    under- 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  105 

In  another  case  the  governor  approved  a  bill  and  left  his 
office  for  lunch.  During  his  absence  his  private  secretary 
filed  it  with  the  secretary  of  state.  The  private  secretary 
was  accustomed  so  to  file  approved  bills  without  any  special 
direction  so  to  do.  On  the  governor's  return  he  obtained 
the  bill,  erased  his  signature  and  returned  it  with  his  ob- 
jections to  the  senate,  where  it  originated.  The  bill  bore 
this  indorsement:  "Keturned  to  the  senate  by  the  governor 
and  signature  refused.  Failed  of  a  passage  over  his  veto." 
In  a  proceeding  for  a  mandamits  to  compel  the  secretar}7  of 
state  to  restore  the  bill  to  its  place  among  the  public  laws 
of  the  state,  the  court  held  that  the  question  must  be  tried 
by  the  bill  and  veto  message  alone,  that  these  could  not  be 
contradicted  by  parol,  and  that  they  showed  that  the  act  did 
not  become  a  law.65 

The  constitution  of  Minnesota  provides  that  "the  gov- 
ernor may  approve,  sign  and  file  in  the  office  of  the  secre- 
tary of  state,  within  three  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
legislature,  any  act  passed  during  the  last  three  da}rs  of  the 
session,  and  the  same  shall  become  a  law."66  The  "last 
three  days"  is  held  to  mean  working  days  and  to  exclude 
Sunday.67  It  is  also  held  that  the  word  "  passed  "  refers  to 
the  enrollment  of  the  act  and  not  to  the  final  vote  upon  it; 

standingly.     The   bill  thereby  be-  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 

came    a    law.     That   which    took  court  by  an  affidavit  of  the  gov- 

place    afterwards    did  not   annul  ernor. 

this  enactment.    It  was  not  even  65  Weeks  v.  Smith,  81  Me.  538,  18 

so  intended  if  the  power  existed.  Atl.  293.    The  court  says  that  the 

The  governor  did  not  attempt  to  governor  may  recall  his  approval 

withdraw  his  approval.    The  place  of  a  bill  while  it  remains  in  his  cus- 

of    signing    was    as    effectual    as  tody,  and   that  if  it  gets  to  the 

though  it  had  been  at  the  end  of  secretary  of  state  without  his  au- 

the  bill,  the  fact  appearing  that  it  thority  it  is  not  such  a  deposit  as 

was  intended  as  a  signing  and  ap-  makes  it  a  law. 

proval  of  the  entire  bill.     The  con-  b6  Art.  4,  sec.  11. 

stitution  does  not  require  that  a  67Stinson  v.  Smith,  8  Minn.  366; 

bill  shall  be  signed  at  the  end,  or  John  V.  Farwell   Co.   v.   Matheis, 

subscribed."    p.  260.  48  Fed.  o63. 
The    facts    in    this    case    were 


IN  \i    I  \II'N  I'    OF     LAWS. 

:niil  w  here  an  act  passed  the  house  on  April  10,  was  reported 
enrolled  ami  presented  to  the  governor  on  April  2l\  and 
itmv  adjonmed  on  April  2J>,  it  was  held  to  have 
been  passed  within  the  last  three  days  of  the  session  within 
the  meaning  of  the  constitntion,  and  the  approval  by  tho 
governor  on  April  24  made  it  a  law.68 

1  (56).  The  organic  act  of  Nevada  territory  vested  the 
legislative  power  in  the  governor  and  legislative  assembly. 
It  was  therefore  held  that,  being  a  part  of  the  legislative 
body,  he  could  only  concur  in  the  passage  of  a  law  whilst 
the  other  branch,  s  had  a  legal  existence.™  The  signing  of 
a  bill  by  the  governor  is  the  mode  appointed  in  the  consti- 
tutions for  him  to  signify  his  approval.  When  he  has  signed 
it  it  will  become  a  law  though  he  send  a  message  to  the 
legislature  or  the  house  in  which  it  originated,  setting  forth 
objections  to  it.70  So  it  has  been  held  that  after  a  bill  has 
been  regularly  passed  by  the  two  houses,  and  has  been  pre- 
sented to  the  governor  for  approval,  it  cannot  be  recalled 
by  t heir  joint  resolution.71  The  schedule  of  the  Kansas  con- 
stitution provides  that  all  officers  under  the  territorial  gov- 
ernment shall  continue  in  the  exercise  of  the  duties  of 
their  respective  departments  until  superseded  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  constitution.  Under  this  provision  it  was 
held  that  the  territorial  governor  properly  approved  an  act 
after  the  act  of  admission  had  passed.7-' 

62  (57).  iiow  a  hill  will  become  a  law  without  ap- 
proval.— Without  the  express  approval  of  the  executive  a 
hill  passed  by  the  legislature  can  become  a  law  only  in  two 
cases.  First,  when  he  fails  to  return  it  with  his  objections 
within  the  time  prescribed  by  the  constitution;  second,  when 

68  Burns  v.  Be  well,  43  Minn.  425,        69  School    Trustees    v.    Commis- 
si X.  W.  224   It  was  also  lield  that  Bioners,  1  New  835;  Birdsall  v.  Car- 
provision   quoted    was    not  a  rick,  :;  Nev.  154 
grant  of  power  t"  approve  a  bill        708tate  v.  Whisner,  85  Kan.  271, 
after  the  adjournment  of  tho  \eg-  10  Pac.  852, 

ire,   but   a   limitation   of    the        "'  Wolfe  w  Met  'aull.  76  Va.  876. 
r.  72  State  v.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  186. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  107 

it  is  passed  over  his  objections  by  the  required  vote.73  Many- 
constitutions  provide  that  an  act  shall  become  a  law  with- 
out the  governor's  signature  if  he  retain  it  for  a  certain 
number  of  days  after  it  is  presented  to  him  for  approval,74 
unless  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  shall  prevent  him 
from  returning  it  within  that  time,  and  in  that  case  that  it 
shall  not  become  a  law.  The  adjournment  intended  by  this 
provision  is  the  final  adjournment,  not  adjournments  from 
time  to  time.75  Where  Sundays  are  excepted  in  the  specifi- 
cation of  the  period;  and  under  the  provision  sometimes 
added,  that  "  the  governor  may  approve,  sign  and  file  in  the 
office  of  the  secretary  of  state  within  three  days  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  legislature,  any  act  passed  during  the 
last  three  days  of  the  session,  and  the  same  shall  become 
a  law,"  Sundays  will  be  excepted  by  construction,  as  in- 
tended by  the  constitution,  in  order  to  give  the  governor 
three  full  working  days  after  the  adjournment.  Such  time 
being  expressly  granted  in  the  limitation  of  time  during  the 
session,  it  is  deemed  not  unreasonable  to  hold  that  there  is 
implied  the  same  exception  of  Sundays  in  the  period  given 
after  the  adjournment,  for  there  is  the  same  and  stronger 
reason  for  it  in  the  greater  number  of  important  bills  usu- 
ally passed  during  the  last  days  of  a  session.76  Whether 
Sunday  is  to  be  included  or  excluded  in  computing  the  time 
allowed  the  executive  for  the  return  of  bills  would  seem  to 
depend  upon  the  general  principles  for  making  such  com- 
putations, which  are  discussed  elsewhere.77  Where  the  time 
allowed  was  five  days,  it  was  held  that  Sunday  should  be 
excluded,  and  the  general  rule  was  laid  down  that  when  the 
time  limited  exceeds  one  week,  Sunday  is  to  be  included, 
but  when  it  is  a  week  or  less,  Sunday  is  to  be  excluded.78 

73  Birdsall  v.  Carriole,  3  Nev.  154.        76Stinson  v.  Smith,  8  Minn.  366; 

74  McNeil   v.  Commonwealth,  12    John  V.  Farwell  Co.  v.  Matheis,  48- 
Bush,  727.  Fed.  363. 

"5 Miller  v.  Hurford.  11  Neb.  377,  ''"Post,  ch.  V. 

9  N.  W.  477;  State  v.  Michel,  52  La.  's  State  v.  Michel,  52  La.   Ann. 

Ann.  936, 27  So.  565,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  936,  27  So.  565,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  364. 
364. 


108  i  HAOTMEN  r   OF    laws. 

Bnt  where  the  provision  was  that  if  the  return  of  a  bill  was 
nted  by  adjournment,  the  bill  should  become  a  law 
unless  the  governor  filed  his  objections  thereto  with  the 
secretary  of  state  within  ten  daysafter  the  adjournment, it 
was  held  that  Sunday  was  excluded." 

§  (*»:>  (58).  This  provision  is  made  in  Iowa  for  bills  passed 
daring  the  last  three  days  of  a  Bession:  that  they  "shall  be 
deposited  by  him  [the  governor]  in  the  otlice  of  the  secre- 
tary of  state  within  thirty  days  after  the  adjournment,  with 
his  approval,  if  approved  by  him,  and  with  his  objections, 
if  he  disapproves  thereof.'''  In  a  case  in  which  the  bill  was 
nted  to  the  governor  during  the  last  three  days  of  the 
session,  and  he  omitted  to  sign  it,  but  within  the  thirty  days 
filed  it  without  objections  with  the  secretary  of  state,  it  was 
held  that  it  did  not  become  a  law  —  it  could  only  become  a 
law  by  his  subsequent  approval  of  it.80 

64  (59).  Presentation  to  executive  —  Veto. —  A  con- 
stitutional provision  requiring  a  bill  to  be  presented  to  the 
Liovrrnor  on  the  day  of  its  passage  and  requiring  the  fact 
of  presentation  to  be  noted  in  the  journal  was  held  to  be 
directory."1  Where  a  bill  is  tendered  to  the  governor  by  the 
proper  oilicer  there  is  a  presentation  within  the  meaning  of 
the  constitution,  though  the  governor  declines  to  receive  it 
and  does  not  receive  it  until  the  next  day.82  A  private  in- 
corporation act  was  presented  to  the  governor  for  his  ap- 
proval. He  indicated  to  the  member  who  introduced  it 
some  objections  to  the  bill,  whereupon  this  member  ob- 
tained leave  from  the  house  to  withdraw  the  bill  from  the 
rnor's  hands,  which  was  done.  The  bill  then  remained 
in  the  control  of  the  promoters  of  the  company  for  more 
than  a  year,  win  n  it  was  presented  to  the  secretary  of  state 
with  a  request  that  he  include  it  among  the  enrolled  bills, 
on  the  ground  that  it  had  become  a  law  by  failure  of  the 

"People  v.  Rose,  1>'>7  111.  117,  47        81  State  v.  Mason,  155  Mo.  486,  55 

S.  W.  636;  State  v.  Mead,  71  Mo.  266. 

irling  v.  Boesch,  67  Iowa,  702,        8zState  v.   Michel,   52  La.  Ann. 

.   ...  387.  37  8a  565.  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  oGl 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


10O 


governor  to  return  it  within  ten  days.  On  mandamus  to 
compel  the  secretary  of  state  to  comply  with  the  request,  it 
was  held  that  the  bill  had  never  been  presented  within  the 
meaning  of  the  constitution.83 

When  a  bill  has  been  presented  to  the  executive  for  his 
approval  his  responsibility  commences,  and  the  time  speci- 
fied in  the  constitution  for  his  action  is  important  and  man- 
datory, for  precise  consequences  of  his  action  or  non-action 
are  defined.  It  must  be  presented  to  bim  during  the  session 
of  the  legislature,  and  he  can  only  return  it  with  objections 
when  the  body  is  in  session  to  which  the  return  must  be 
made.  If  the  session  is  ended  or  interrupted  by  adjourn- 
ment; if  the  members  have  dispersed,  and  the  officers  are 
not  in  attendance,  he  cannot  return  it  to  the  house  in  which 

83McKinzie  v.  Moore,  92  Ky.  216, 
17  S.  W.  483,  14  L,  R.  A.  251.  The 
court  says:  "  The  object  in  present- 
ing a  bill  to  the  executive  is  to  en- 
able him  to  consider  its  various 
features  that  he  may  understand- 
ingiy  approve  or  reject  it.  He  must 
have  time  to  consider  its  provisions, 
and  with  the  courtesy  extended 
members  of  the  legislature  by  the 
executive  of  the  state,  that  has 
grown  into  a  custom,  in  permitting 
them  to  withdraw  bills  before  ma- 
ture consideration  by  him  that  ap- 
pear to  be  objectionable,  it  would 
be  a  singular  rule  to  adopt,  and 
one  productive  of  much  evil,  to 
permit  a  member,  however  honest 
his  motives,  to  withdraw  a  bill 
from  the  consideration  of  the  ex- 
ecutive, that  the  member  himself 
has  introduced,  and  after  the  lapse 
of  months,  with  the  legislature  ad- 
journed, to  declare  the  bill  a  law 
because  it  was  once  in  the  govern- 
or's hands.  It  is  no  such  presenta- 
tion as  is  contemplated  by  the  con- 
stitution  for  the   member,  or  the 


custodian  of  the  bill,  to  deliver  it 
to  the  governor,  then  immediately 
withdraw  it  and  claim  that  it  be- 
comes a  law,  because  the  governor 
failed  to  return  it  within  the  ten 
days."     p.  221. 

An  indorsement  on  a  bill  by  the 
secretary  of  the  senate  that  it  was 
presented  to  the  governor  March 
31  was  held  to  be  overcome  by  an 
indorsement  on  the  same  bill  by 
the  secretary  of  state  that  it  was 
presented  on  April  4.  Lankford  v. 
County  Com'rs,  73  Md.  105,  20  Atl. 
1017,  11  L.  R.  A.  491. 

In  the  Texas  constitution  the 
governor  must  act  on  every  bill 
presented  to  him  one  day  previous 
to  the  adjournment  of  the  legisla- 
ture before  the  ad  journment ;  other- 
wise it  will  become  a  law  without 
his  approval;  and  under  it  it  is  held 
that  the  governor  must  have  the  bill 
at  least  twenty-four  hours  before 
the  adjournment.  Hyde  v.  White, 
24  Tex.  137;  Const.  1845,  art.  5,  §  17; 
Const.  1868,  art.  4,  §  25;  Const.  1866, 
art.  5,  §  17. 


11" 


ENA<   rMENl    OF    LAWS. 


it  originated.     He  is  not  authorized  to  return  a  bill  to  the 

speaker  of  the  house,  to  the  clerk,  or  to  any  other  officer, 

only  to  the  house  in  which  it  originated,  and  that  can 

only  be  as  a  1ki.1v/4  The  return  of  a  bill  by  laying  it  on 
speaker's  table  ami  the  announcement  of  a  message 
from  the  governor,  before  the  adjournment  of  the  house,  is 
a  sufficient  return  of  it,  though  the  house  was  at  the  time 
taking  a  vote  by  ayes  and  noes  on  a  motion  to  adjourn, 
which  was  carried.85  Though  the  constitution  requires  a 
larger  majority  to  pass  certain  bills  than  is  required  to  pass 
a  bill  over  the  governor's  veto,  such  bills  must  nevertheless 
be  presented  to  the  governor,  and  can  become  laws  only  in 
>ual  way,  and  if  he  vetoes  such  a  bill  it  must  be  passed 


"People  v.  Hatch,  33  111.  9.  185. 

"Opinion  of  Justices,  45  N.  H.  608. 

Vs  Co  what  shall  be  regarded  as  a 

return,  and  what  should  be  consid- 
,ts  a  day  in  this  connection, 
thejusticesinthisopinionsay:  "Nor 
are  we  by  any  means  prepared  to 
say  that  the  legislative   day  was 
ended  necessarily  by  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  house,  even  though  it 
might  have  been  at  the  usual  hour 
in  the  afternoon ;  or  that  the  return 
of  the  bill  at  any  convenient  time 
during  the  day  to  the  speaker,  al- 
though after  the  house  adjourned 
for  the  day,  would  not  have  been 
sufficient.      The   provision   of  the 
constitution  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject should  receive  a  reasonable 
I  ruction;  and  it  can  hardly  be 
that  the  time  limited  for 
the  return  of  the  bill  has  expired 
:''iat  branch  of  the  legisla- 
in  which   the  bill  originated 
has  adjourned  for  the  day.  if  the 
five  days  limited  by  the  constitu- 
tion have  not  expired.     The  word 
•  day,"  in  its  common  acceptation, 


means  a  civil  day  of  twenty-four 
hours,  beginning  and  ending  at  mid- 
night." Shaw  v.  Dodge,  5  N.  H.  165; 
Colby  v.  Knapp,  13  id.  175.  This 
opinion  answers  the  question 
whether  the  bill  was  properly  i  re- 
sented to  the  governor.  It  was  left 
in  the  executive  office  in  the  gov- 
ernor's absence,  and  it  came  to  his 
notice  on  the  following  day.  It  is 
supposed  that  custom  and  habit 
have  designated  where  the  execu- 
tive business  is  done;  and  leaving 
the  bill  there  on  the  governor's 
table,  even  in  his  absence,  is  a  pre- 
sentation. The  justices  say  as  to 
personal  presentation  elsewhere: 
"  It  would  be  absurd  to  hold  that  the 
officers  of  the  senate  and  house  of 
representatives  are  obliged,  in  order 
to  perform  their  duty,  to  follow  the 
governor  wherever  he  may  chance 
to  go,  whether  in  the  state  or  out 
of  it,  upon  his  private  business  as 
well  as  public,  and  present  it  to  him 
in  person  wherever  he  may  happen 
to  be." 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  Ill 

over  his  veto,  or  fail.86  The  constitution  of  Kentucky  pro- 
vides that  an  act  shall  not  take  effect  until  ninety  days 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  session,  "except  in  cases  of 
emergency,  when  by  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the 
members  elected  to  each  house  of  the  general  assembly,  by 
a  yea  and  nay  vote  entered  in  their  journals,  an  act  may  be- 
come a  law  when  approved  by  the  governor"  It  is  held  that 
an  act  with  an  emergency  clause  passed  over  the  governor's 
veto  takes  effect  immediately.87  In  the  absence  of  express 
provision  to  the  contrary,  a  bill  must  be  approved  or  re- 
jected as  a  whole,  and  cannot  be  approved  in  part  and 
vetoed  in  part,  and  such  action  is  held  to  be  a  nullity.88  An 
exception  is  sometimes  made  in  case  of  appropriation  bills, 
and  under  power  to  approve  part  and  disapprove  part  of 
such  a  bill,  a  single  item  may  be  approved  as  to  part  and 
disapproved  as  to  the  remainder.89 

The  computation  of  the  time  for  different  purposes,  both 
for  executive  action  on  bills  presented  for  approval  and  in 
determining  when  acts  take  effect,  is  a  subject  of  consider- 
able interest.  The  discussion  of  it  will  be  deferred  until 
the  latter  topic  is  reached.90 

§  65.  Extra  sessions. —  Extra  or  special  sessions  of  the 
legislature  are  usually  provided  for  in  the  constitution,  and 
in  such  cases  the  legislature  is  also  usually  limited  to  the 
transaction  of  such  business  as  is  mentioned  in  the  call. 
Where  this  limitation  exists,  legislation  relating  to  other 
subjects  will  be  void.91  In  order  to  determine  this  question 
the  courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  governor's  procla- 

"  86  state  v.  Crounse,  36  Neb.  835,  v.  Cheetham,  17  Wash.  483,  49  Pao. 

55  N.  W.  246.  1072. 

87  Sinking  Fund  Com'rs  v.  George,  90  Post,  ch.  V. 

104  Ky.  260,  47  S.  W.  779,  84  Am.  St.  91  Davidson  v.  Moorman,  2  Heisk. 

Rep.  454.  575;   Jones  v.  Theall,  3  Nev.  23:3. 

ss  State  v.  Holder,  76  Miss.  158,  23  See  Speed  v.  Crawford,  3  Met.  (Ky.) 

So.  643.  207;  People  v.  Curry,  130  Cal.  82, 62 

89  Commonwealth  v.  Barnett,  199  Pao.  516;  Wells  v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

Pa.  St.  161,  48  Atl.  976;  State  v.  Hoi-  110  Mo.  286,  19  S.  W.  530,  15  L.  R. 

der,  76  Miss.  158,23  So.  643.  See  State  A.  847. 


1 1-_ 


I    ,  V,  !    N  I     01      LAWS. 


mation. "-'  The  legislature  may  ad  freely  within  the  call;98 
may  legislate  upon  all  or  any  of  the  subjects  specified,  or 
upon  anv  part  of  a  subject; w  and  every  presumption  will 
be  made  in  favor  of  the  regularity  of  its  action.98  Where 
the  call  was  to  amend  the  law  relating  to  elections,  known 
as  the  Australian  ballot  law,  in  specified  particulars,  it  was 
hold  that  the  amendment  of  the  law  generally  was  in- 
cluded,  and  that  the  legislature  was  not  limited  to  the  par- 
ticulars specified.96  So,  where  the  call  was  "to  reduce  the 
penalties  and  interest  on  delinquent  taxes  to  one-half  the 
present  rates,"  it  was  held  that  the  legislature  was  author- 
ized to  act  generally  on  the  subject  of  such  reduction,  and 
that  it  was  not  confined  to  the  precise  amount  stated  in  the 
call.81  "Whether  an  extraordinary  occasion  exists  which 
justifies  the  calling  of  an  extra  session  is  solely  a  question 
for  the  executive.98 

,.  (;<».  Limitation  of  time  for  introduction  of  bills  or 
duration  of  session. —  If  the  constitution  prohibits  the  in- 
troduction of  bills  after  a  certain   period  in  a  session,  the 
.ation  cannot  be  evaded  by  substituting  new  measures 
•Imentof  pending  bills.99     But  whatever  is  within 
roper  scope  of  amendment  is  admissible  after  that  pe- 
riod, and  this  embraces   whatever   is  germane  to  the  pur- 
pose which  the  bill  had  in  view.1     Therefore,  it   was  held 


Veils  v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  110 
Mo.  286,  l'J  S.  W.  530,  15  L.  R  A. 
847. 

In  re  Governor's  Proclamation, 
19  Colo.  333,  35  Pac.  580. 

Brown  v.  State.  32  Tex.  Ciim. 
Rep.  1 19,  22  S.  W.  596. 

hicago,  B.  &  Q.  R  R.  Co.  v. 
Wolfe.  61  Neb.  502,  SON.  W.  441. 

96  People  v.  Johnson,  23  Colo.  150, 
■;•;  Pac 
'■'■  Baker  v.  Kaiser,  126  Fed.   317, 

—  C.  C.  A. . 

98Farrellyv.  Cole.  60  Kan.  356, 
56  Pac  15,  41  L.  R  A.  464. 


99  Pack  v.  Barton,  47  Mich.  520, 11 
N.  W.  367;  Powell  v.  Jackson,  51 
Micb.  129, 18  N.  W.  369;  Sackriderv. 
Board  of  Sup'rs,  79  Mich.  59,  44  N. 
W.165;  Attorney-General  v. Detroit, 
etc.  Plank  Road  Co.,  97  Mich.  589,  56 
N.  W.  943.  See  Say  re  v.  Pollard,  77 
Ala.  608. 

!Hale  v.  McGettigan,  114  Cat 
112, 45  Pac.  1049;  Caldwell  v.  Ward, 
83  Midi.  13,  40  N.  W.  1024;  Toll  v. 
Jerome,  101  Mich.  468,  59  N.  W.  810: 
Davock  v.  Moore,  105  Mich.  120,  63 
X.  W.  424,  28  L.  R.  A.  783;  Re- 
nackowsky    v.     Board     of    Water 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  113 

that  a  bill  to  organize  a  township  might  be  changed  by 
amendment  to  organize  the  same  territory  into  a  county.2 
So  where  several  bills  were  introduced  within  the  period  to 
amend  a  particular  act,  a  substitute  bill  on  the  same  sub- 
ject in  the  form  of  an  original  act  was  held  proper.3  A  bill 
applicable  to  a  county  may  be  changed  by  amendment  to 
apply  to  the  entire  state.4  In  the  case  cited  the  court  says: 
"  The  right  to  enlarge  or  limit  the  territory  within  which 
such  acts  shall  be  operative,  under  bills  which,  as  intro- 
duced, include  a  part  or  all  of  the  state,  has  never  been 
questioned.  It  can  as  well  be  done  after  the  fifty-day  limit 
as  before."  In  Michigan  it  is  held  that  a  bill  to  amend  a 
single  section  of  an  act  may  be  changed  after  the  period  to 
a  bill  to  amend  any  other  section  or  sections  of  the  same 
act.5  The  question  whether  an  amendment  or  substitute,, 
introduced  after  the  period  limited  has  expired,  is  germane 
to  the  original  bill  or  bills,  must  be  determined  from  the 
journal,  and  for  this  purpose  the  contents  of  the  original 
bill  will  be  presumed  to  correspond  to  its  title.6 

The  constitution  of  Tennessee  provides  that  "after  a  bill 

Com'rs,  122  Mich.   613,   81   N.  W.  will    include   whatever  is  within 

581.  the  purpose  of  the  bill.     By  the 

2  Pack  v.  Barton,  47  Mich.  520,  11  same  rules  a  substitute  that  is  ger- 
N.  W.  367.  mane  to  the  subject  of  the  bill 

3  Hale  v.  McGettigan,  114  Cal.  112,  may  be  adopted,  without  violating 
45  Pac.  1049.  The  court  says:  this  provision  of  the  constitution, 
"There  can  be  no  presumption  that  since  such  substitute  is  in  effect 
the  legislature  has  disregarded  any  only  an  enlarged  amendment  to 
constitutional  requirements  in  the  the  bill  for  which  it  is  offered." 
passage  of  a   statute,  and   if  the  p.  116. 

journals  are  silent  upon  the  observ-  4  Caldwell  v.  Ward,  83  Mich.  13, 

ance  of  any  constitutional  require-  46  N.  W.  1024. 

ment,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  5  Common   Council  v.   Schmidt, 

such  requirement  was  omitted  by  128  Mich.  379,  87  N.  W.  383,  92  Am. 

the  legislature.     If  a  bill  has  been  St.  Rep.  468. 

introduced  in  either  house  within  6  Caldwell  v.  Ward,  83  Mich.  13, 

the  first  fifty  days  of  the  session,  46  N.  W.   1024;  Attorney-General 

whatever  is  proper  in  the  way  of  v.  Detroit,  etc.  Plank  Road  Co.,  97 

amendment  is  as  admissible  after  Mich.  589,  56  N.  W.  943. 

the  fifty  days  as   before,  and  this 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 

has  I  cted  no  bill  containing  the  same  substanoo 

shall  be  passed  into  a  law  during  the  same  session."  T  It  is 
held  the  "s  ssion  "  means  one  sitting  of  the  assembly,  and 
not  the  life  of  the  body,  and,  therefore,  that  a  bill  rejected 
it  a  regular  session  may  be  passed  at  a  special  session  of 
islaturo,  if  embraced  in  the  call.8 
Where  a  session  was  limited  to  fifty  days,  it  was  held  to 

.  working  days,  or  fifty  days  exclusive  of  Sundays.9  In 

another  ease,  where  the  session  was  limited  to  forty  days, 

t  was   held   to  embrace  at  least   forty  full  days   from  the 

hour  of  convening,  and  that  a  session  begun  at  noon  of  No- 

1  not  expire  before  noon  of  December  16.10 

Vt  (GO).  Forms  of  legislation. —  A  bill  is  a  form  or 
draft  of  a  law  presented  to  a  legislature,  but  not  yet  enacted, 
or  before  it  is  enacted;  a  proposed  or  projected  law.11  This 
is  the  meaning  of  a  bill  in  practice,  and  has  been  judicially 
commended.12  It  is  an  .act  after  it  has  gone  through  the 
process  of  enactment  and  become  a  law.  A  legislative  act 
or  statute  is  a  bill  passed  and  approved  under  the  introduc- 

words,  formula  or  style,  "-.lie  it  enacted."     The  term 

-  sometimes  loosely  applied  to  mean  the  same  as  an  act, 
as  well  as  to  other  forms  of  proposed  or  completed  legisla- 
tion.13 '\  ins,  hill  ami  act,  are  used  as  synonymous 
in  some  of  our  constitutions.14 

18  (61).  Ordinances  have  sometimes  been  distinguished 
from  statutes  in  practice;  not  that  to  ordain  is  of  less  force 
than  the  expression  to  enact,  but,  as  Lord  Coke  says,  because 
an  ordinance  has  not  the  assent  of  the  king,  lords  and  com- 
ling  made  by  only  one  or  two  of  those  powers.  It 
-tated  in  Bacon's  Abridgment  that  this  distinc- 
tion has  been  disputed.     It  is  there  laid  down  that  "with 

7  Art.  2,  see.  lft  "  \Vehster\s  Diet. 

'  Williams  v.  Nashville,  89  Tenn.  12  May  v.  Rice,  91  Ind.  549. 

.  W.  364.  "Gushing,  L.  &  P.  of  Leg.  Ass., 

9  Ex  parte  Cowert,  92  Ala.  94,  9  §  2055. 

11  People  v.   Lawrence,  36  Barb. 

7hite  v.  Hi, ton.  :;  Wyo.  753,  130. 
80  lJac.  903,  17  L.  R.  A.  I 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  115 

regard  to  parliamentary  forms  this  much  seems  agreed :  that 
whore  the  proceeding  consisted  only  of  a  petition  from  par- 
liament, and  an  answer  from  the  king,  these  were  entered 
on  the  parliament  roll;  and  if  the  matter  was  of  a  public 
nature,  the  whole  was  then  usually  styled  an  ordinance;  if, 
however,  the  petition  and  answer  were  not  only  of  a  public 
Imt  a  novel  nature,  they  were  then  formed  into  an  act  by 
she  king,  with  the  aid  of  his  council  and  judges,  and  entered 
Dn  the  statute  roll."15  It  is  also  laid  down  by  the  same  au- 
thority that  an  ordinance  on  the  parliamentary  roll,  with 
the  king's  assent  upon  it,  has,  nevertheless,  equal  force  with 
a  statute.16  The  term  ordinance  is  more  usually  applied  to 
the  acts  of  a  corporation,  and  as  synonymous  with  by-law.17 
It  has,  however,  been  often  used  in  more  solemn  acts  of  the 
states  and  of  the  general  government.18  Resolutions,  or 
joint  resolutions,  are  a  form  of  legislation  which  has  been 
in  frequent  use  in  this  country,  chiefly  for  administrative 
purposes  of  a  local  or  temporary  character,  and  sometimes 
for  private  purposes  only.  It  is  recognized  in  many  of  our 
constitutions,  in  which,  and  in  the  rules  and  orders  of  our 
legislative  bodies,  it  is  put  upon  the  same  footing  and  made 
subject  to  the  same  regulations  as  bills  properly  so  called.19 
By  legislative  practice  and  usage,  joint  resolutions  have  the 
force  of  law,  whether  applied  to  administrative,  local  or 
temporary  matters,  or  intended  for  important  measures.-0 
But  where  the  constitution  provides  that  no  law  shall  be 
passed  except  by  bill,  a  joint  resolution  is  not  a  law.21 

§  69  (62).  Constitutional  provisions  as  to  enacting  style 
held  directory. —  Many  constitutions  provide  that  laws 
shall  be  enacted  by  bill,  and  direct  that  the  style  shall  be, 
"  Be  it  enacted,"  etc.     In  a  few  states  such  provisions  have 

»  Bac.  Abr.,  Statute  A.  21  Mullan  v.  State,  114  Cal.  578,  46 

I(i  Id.  Pao.  670,  34  L.  R.  A.  262;  Collier  & 

17  Bisk,  Written  Laws,  §  18.  C.  Lithographing  Co.  v.  Henderson, 

'8  Cush.,  L.  &  Pr.  Leg.  Ass.,  §2046.  18  Colo.  259,  32  Pac.  417;  Hender- 

i9Cushing,  L.   &   Pr.  Leg.  Ass.,  son  v.  Collier  &  C.  Lith.  Co.,  2  Colo. 

13 ;  Swann  v.  Buck,  40  M  iss.  293.  App.  251,  30  Pac.  40. 
20  Id.;  McCarver  v.  Herzberg,  120 
Ala.  523,  25  So.  3. 


[16  I    N   \(    I  Ml   M     OF     I.  A  US. 

been  held  to  bedirectory.    Tims,  in  Swann  v.  Buck,"  it  was 
so  held  that  a  joint  resolution  passed  by  all  the  forms  of 

n  was  valid  — that  the  word  "resolved"  is  as  po- 
tent to  declare  the  legislative  will  as  the  word  "enacted." 
The  court  -     :  "The  argument  against  requiring  a  literal 
compliance  with  any  form  of  words  in  the  enacting  clause, 
.  ondition  of  giving  effect  to  a  statute,  would  be  v,  iy 
strong  on  the  score  of  convenience;  for  the  plainest  expres- 
of  the  legislative  will,  and  the  most  urgent  in  their 
character,  would  he  constantly  liable  to  be  defeated  by  the 
ssion  or  departure  from  the  established  phi 
No  possible  good  could  be  achieved  by  such  strict- 
and  the  greatest  evil  might  result  from  it.     There  are 
words  in  the  constitution  negativing  the  use  of 
any  other  language,  and  we  think  the  intention  will  be  best 
effectuated  by  holding  the  clause  to  be  directory  only." 

8).  The  several  constitutions  of  Mississippi  make  a 
plain  d  ist  i  net  ion  between  bills  and  resolutions,  as  doe.,  the 
constitution  of  Indiana.  There  seem  to  be  many  of  the  con- 
ts  pointed  out  in  the  opinion  in  May  v.  Rice,23  which 
will  presently  be  referred  to  particularly.24    The  constitu- 
.  land  have  made  no  provision  for  any  form  of 
lation  but  by  "original  bill."    They  have  provided  that 
style  of  all  laws     .     .     .     shall  be,  'Be  it  enacted  by 
the  general  assembly  of  Maryland;' and  all  laws  shall  be 
■  1  by  original  bill."25   The  case  of  McPherson  v.  Leon- 
does  not  altogether  follow  Swann  v.  Buck27  in  the 
■ning  upon  which  the  court  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  foregoing  provisions  are  directory.  The  Mississippi 
concedes  that,  to  be  valid,  an  act  should  refer  to  the 

22  ;,          ..    joa  "Seeposf,  §71. 

..  i.  546.    Const  1817,  art.  3,  25 1                51,  art.  3,  §§  17,  18,  19, 

art  6,  20;  Const  1864, art 

•.  Id.  11,  11.  Const  1833,  art  3,  Const  I  87,  art  3,  §§  -'7,28,29,32. 

15,  16;  art.  7,  2629  MA  i 

0,  7,  9,  10.     Const  1868,  art.  4.  n  40  Miss.  2 
'A.  25,  26,  82;  art.  12.  §§  2,  4, 
fr.  11. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  117 

enacting  authority.  That  was  the  point  of  the  objection  to 
the  act  in  the  Maryland  case.  The  court  held  the  above 
provisions  directory,  and,  therefore,  as  the  court  said,  "may 
be  disregarded  without  rendering  the  act  void."  It  was  so 
held  upon  the  rule  applicable  in  the  construction  of  statutes 
that  provisions  which  relate  to  form,  and  not  to  the  essence 
and  substance  of  the  thing  to  be  done,  are  directory  unless 
the  statute  is  restrictive  to  the  mode  and  form  prescribed.28 
The  constitution  of  Missouri  prescribes  also  a  precise  style, 
and  declares  it  shall  be  the  style  of  the  laws  of  that  state.29 
The  act  in  question  in  the  City  of  Girardeau  v.  Riley  30  had 
no  enacting  clause  or  style.  That  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution was  held  directory  and  the  act  valid,  and  upon  the 
same  argument  put  forth  in  McPherson  v.  Leonard.31  The 
court  remarked  on  the  similarity  of  the  language  as  to  pro- 
cess requiring  writs  to  run  in  the  name  of  the  state,  and 
that  that  provision  had  been  held  to  bo  directory.32 

§  71  (64).  Constitutional  provisions  as  to  enacting 
style  held  mandatory. —  The  requirement  that  laws  shall 
be  passed  under  a  precise  enacting  style,  commencing  with 
the  words,  "Be  it  enacted,"  and  referring  to  the  enacting 
authority,  has  been  held  mandatory  in  Indiana,  Nevada, 
Alabama,  Rhode  Island  and  West  Virginia.  In  other  states 
the  courts  have  held  other  provisions  of  the  constitutions  of 
like  nature  to  be  mandatory.33  In  Indiana  the  constitution 
plainly  distinguishes  between  bills  and  resolutions,  as  does 
the  constitution  of  Mississippi.  In  May  v.  Rice,34  the  question 
was  whether  money  could  be  appropriated  by  a  joint  reso- 
lution.    It  was  held  that  such  a  resolution  was  ineffectual 

28  Citing  Sedgw.  on  St.  &  Con.  L.  ™  52  Mo.  424. 

368  et  seq..  and  cases  there  cited;  3i29Md.  377. 

Smith  on  S.  &  C.  Con.,  £  (179:  Striker  32  Davis  v.  Wood,  7  Mo.  1G5;  Jump 

v.  Kelly,  7  Hill,  24;  Pacific  R.  R.  v.  v.  Batton,  35  id.  196,  86  Am.  Dec. 

The  Governor,  33  Mo.  368,  66  Am.  146;  Doan  v.  Boley,  38  Mo.  449. 

Dec.  673.     See  post,  §§  625,  62&  ™  See  ante,  §§  30-36;  post,  §  112. 

-!l  Const.  1820,  art.  JJ,  §  36;  Const.  8491  Ind.  546. 
1865,  art.  4.  §  26;  Const.  1875,  art.  4, 
£24. 


lis  ENACTMEN  r    OF    L  JlW8. 

for  that  purpose.    The  constitution  prohibits  the  drawing 

of  money  from  the  state  treasury,  except  in  pursuance  of 

opriations  made  by  la/w.    It  also   requires  that  "the 

stylo  of  every  law  shall  bo :  'Be   it  enacted   by  the  general 

tlbly  of  the  stad'  of  Indiana/  and  no   law   shall    be   en- 
acted except  by  bill." M     The   resolution    was  held   not,  eo 
.  enacted  as  a  "bill."    The  opinion  answers  three  in- 
quiries:     1st.  "  Is  it  essential  to  constitute  a  law,  in  the  sense 
in  which  that  term  is  used  in  the  constitution,  that  the  en- 
actment shall  have  been   presented   and  passed  as  a  bill? 
2d.  Is  it  essential  in  the  enactment  of  a  law  that  the  words 
d  for  the  enacting  clause  shall  be  used,  or  may  the 
words  'Be  it  resolved'  be  substituted  for  'Be  it  enacted?' 
Out  of  these  inquiries,"  say  the  court,  "springs  the  more 
3d.  Is  this  resolution  a  law,  in  any  sense,  as 
that  term  is  used  in  these  sections  of  the  constitution     .     . 
in  relation  to  the  appropriation  of  money?"     The  first  two 
wen  d  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  last  in  the  negative. 

The  opinion  points  out  important  differences  in  the  pro- 
cedure  for  the  passage  of  bills  from  that  which  may  be  fol- 
1  in  the  adoption  of  resolutions,  showing  that  the  former 
only  are  intended  for  the  enactment  of  laws.  These  differ- 
ences may  be  observed  in  other  constitutions,  and  therefore 
a  considerable  extract  from  the  opinion  has  been  quoted  in 
the  note  below.36  The  words  of  the  enacting  style  need  not 
precede  a  preamble,  but  should  precede  the  entire  law.37 

•.  t.  1851,  art.  4,  sec.  1;  art.  some  description;  as,  a  bill  of  at- 

10,8  tainder.'     Bills  and  acts  are  some- 

.  J. :  "  Is  a  resolution  a  times  used  as  synonymous  terms. 

bill?    Perl  curate  a  defini-  Cushing,  sec.  2055.    The  definition 

t  ion  of  a  bill  a-  can  be  found  is  that  of  a  bill  as  given  by  Webster  is  that 

given  in  We     tor's  Dictionary:  'A  usually  accepted  and  acted  upon; 

form  or  draft  of  law,  presented  to  but  as  we  shall  see,  our  constitution 

-lature,  but  not  yet  enacted;  extends  it.    The  idea  conveyed  l>y 

a  proposed  or  projected  law.'     -Jii  tin'  word  bill  is  different  from  that 

ne  called  bills,  conveyed  by  the  word  resolution. 

but  usually  they  are  qualified  by  The  distinction  between  a  bill  and 

«  Barton  v.  McWhinney,  85  Ind.  481. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS. 


119 


§  72  (65).  The  same  question  arose  in  Nevada  as  in  Mc- 
Pherson  v.  Leonard.38  The  provision  of  the  constitution  in 
Nevada  is  that  "  the  enacting  clause  of  every  law  shall  be 
as  follows:  'The  people  of  the  state  of  Nevada,  represented 


resolution  is  clearly  kept  up  in  the 
constitution  of  this  state  as  an  ex- 
amination of  its  provisions  will 
show.  We  call  attention  to  some 
of  the  sections  of  article  4.  Bills 
may  originate  in  either  house,  ex- 
cept revenue  bills.  Sec.  17.  The 
vote  on  the  passage  of  a  bill  or 
joint  resolution  shall  be  taken  by 
yeas  and  nays.  The  bill  must  be 
read  by  sections  on  three  different 
days,  etc.  Sec.  18.  A  joint  resolu- 
tion of  different  sections  doubtless 
may  be  passed  upon  one  reading. 
Everj-  act  shall  embrace  but  one 
subject  and  matters  properly  con- 
nected therewith,  which  subject 
shall  be  embraced  in  the  title.  Sec. 
19.  There  is  no  such  provision  in  re- 
lation to  joint  resolutions.  No  act 
shall  ever  be  revised  or  amended 
by  mere  reference  to  its  title.  Sec. 
21.  This  section  has  no  reference 
to  joint  resolutions.  No '"act  "shall 
take  effect  until  the  same  shall 
nave  been  published  and  circulat- 
ed in  the  several  counties  of  the 
state  by  authority,  except  in  cases 
of  emergency,  etc.  Sec.  28.  This 
can  have  no  reference  to  joint  res- 
olutions. They  take  effect  as  soon 
as  passed.  Bills  and  joint  resolu- 
tions must  be  passed  by  a  vote  of  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  leg- 
islature, and  when  so  passed  shall 
be  signed  by  the  presiding  officers 
of  the  respective  houses.  These 
requisites  they  have  in  common, 


but  the  distinction  is  clearly  kept 
up.  Sec.  25.  In  section  14  of  arti- 
cle 5,  a  bill  is  recognized  as  still  a 
bill,  after  its  passage  and  until  it 
has  reached  the  governor.  Every 
bill  which  has  passed,  etc.,  shall  be 
pi-esented  to  the  governor.  The 
governor  is  required  either  to  sign 
the  bill,  or  return  it  to  the  house  in 
which  it  may  have  originated,  with 
his  objections,  etc.  If  he  sign  the 
bill,  it  becomes  a  law.  If  he  veto 
it,  and  it  is  not  repassed  by  the 
requisite  vote,  it  does  not  become 
a  law.  Nothing  of  the  kind  is  re- 
quired in  relation  to  a  joint  resolu- 
tion under  our  constitution  as  we 
understand  and  interpret  that  in- 
strument. Such  a  resolution,  if 
passed  by  the  requisite  vote,  and 
signed  by  the  presiding  officers,  is 
in  full  force.  Nothing  would  be 
added  to  its  validity  and  force  by 
the  signature  of  the  governor,  nor 
has  he  any  power  to  defeat  it  by  a 
veto.  It  does  not  go  to  him  for  any 
purpose  of  approval  or  disapproval. 
It  appears  from  the  constitutional 
debates  that  a  proposition  to  in- 
clude joint  resolutions  with  bills 
in  the  above  section,  so  that  they 
should  be  sent  to  the  governor,  was 
voted  down.  2  Deb.  Const.  Con  v.. 
p.  1331.  This  action  of  the  conven- 
tion is  the  more  significant  when  we 
recollect  that  the  convention  was  in 
a  work  of  reform,  adapting  the  new- 
constitution  to  the  increased  wants 


!29Md.  386;  ante,  §2. 


L20 


lNAi'i  MEN  1    OF    LAW  3. 


in  Benate  and  assembly,  do  enaot.' "  In  tlic  case  in  which 
aestioD  was  discussed,89  it  appeared  that  an  act  was 
•  I  in  the  enacting  olause  of  which  there  was  omitted 


and  dangers  of  a  rapidly  increasing 
and  pro  in  b&h  e  populal  ion,  and 
that  the  constitution  of  1816,  which 
was  being  superseded,  provided  for 
..int  resolutions  as  well  as  bills  to 

nt  to  the  governor  for  his  ap- 
proval  or  disapproval,  and  to  bo 
treated  by  him  and  the  legislature 
us  bills  if  vetoed  by  him.  It  is  very 
apparent  from  this  examination  of 

onstitution  t:  at  the  terms  bill 
and  joint  resolution,  as  used  there 
in.  ..  in  the  same  thing. 

They  are  widely  different.  Their 
functions  are  altogether  different 
Authority  toact  by  joint  resolution 
is  given,  affirmatively,  by  the  con- 
stitution in  but  few  instances. 

"By  such  resolution,  the  two 
houses  may  adjourn  lor  more  than 
three  days.  Art.  4,  sec.  10.  Cer- 
tain officers  may  be  removed  by 
such  resolution.  Art.  6,  sec.  7. 
Possibly  under  section  17  of  article 
5,  the  powers  granted  to  grant 
pardons,  etc.,  may  be  exercised  by 
such  resolution.  Besides  tli  i  au- 
thority thus  granted,  a  joint  reso- 
lution doubtless  may  be  the  means 
of  expressing  the  legislative  will  in 

tence  to  the  discharge  of  an 
administrative   duty,   if  such   ex- 
falls  short  of  the  enact- 
in. nt  ofa   law.     The  general  and 
solutions  is 
in  the  adoption  of  rules  and  orders 

tive  to  the  proceedings  of  the 

lative  body.    Cushing,  supra, 

;  1  [ay's  Par.  Prac.,  pp.  440, 

1  Mir  conclusion  U|  on  this 

branch  of  the  case  is  that  a  joint 


resolution  under  our  constitution 
is  not  a  hill,  and  that  laws  for  the 
appropriation  of  money  for  public 
purposes  or  the  |  aj  ment  of  private 
cla  mis  .  .  .  cannot  he  enacted 
by  joint  rest  lution.  This  view  is 
sustained  by  the  cases  of  Barry  v. 
Viall,  12  R.  1.  1,  18;  Reynolds  v. 
Blue,  47  A  la.  711;  Brown  v.  Fleisch- 
ner,  4  Ore.  132;  Boyen  v.  Crane,  1 
W.  Va.  176." 

In  deference  to  the  opinion  in 
Swann  v.  Buck,  40  Miss  268,  the 
court  in   May   v.    Rice  appear  to 

the  expression  "i 
law,"  in  the  provision  of  the  In- 
diana constitution  relative  to  the 
enacting  style,  as  more  compre- 
hensive and  exclusive  than  the  ex- 
pression "  the  laws  of  this  state," 
in  the  corresponding  provision  of 
the  Mississippi  constitution.  The 
latter  are  the  words  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi constitution,  and  the  court, 
in  Swann  v.  Buck,  said,  "there  are 
no  exclusive  words  in  the  constitu- 
tion negativing  the  use  of  any 
other  language;"  meaning,  doubt- 
I  hat  the  constitution  did  not 
forbid  the  use  of  any  other  words, 
or  the  passage  of  a  law  without 
those  prescribed;  for  "the  laws  of 
this  state.  "  include  all,  as  much  as 
the  expression  "every  law."  If  a 
command  broad  enough  affirma- 
tively to  include  all  the  laws  ini- 
ive,  then  one  is  im- 
plied from  the  language  of  the 
constitutions  of  both  state.. 

"State  v.  Rogers,  10  Nev.  250. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  121 

the  words  "  senate  and."  The  act  was  held  unconstitutional 
and  void.  In  the  opinion,  the  court  responds  to  the  decla- 
ration in  the  Maryland  case  that  the  enacting  style  is  not 
of  the  essence  and  substance  of  the  enactment.  Hawley, 
C.  J.,  said  that  statement  is  clearly  erroneous  and  the  opinion 
fallacious.  "How  can  it  be  said  that  these  words  are  not 
of  the  essence  and  substance  of  a  law  when  the  constitution 
declares  that  the  enacting  clause  of  every  law  shall  contain 
them."  He  quoted,  with  apparent  approval,  from  the  dis- 
senting opinion  of  Stewart,  J.,  in  the  Maryland  case,  that  it 
is  incumbent  on  the  law-making  department  to  pursue  the 
constitutional  mode.  "If  a  positive  requirement  of  this 
character  .  .  .  can  be  disregarded,  so  may  others  of  a 
different  character;  and  where  will  the  limit  be  affixed  or 
practical  discrimination  made  as  to  what  parts  of  the  or- 
ganic law  of  the  state  are  to  be  held  advisory,  directory  or 
mandatory?  Disregard  of  the  requirements  of  the  consti- 
tution, although,  perchance,  in  matters  of  mere  form  and 
style,  in  any  part,  in  law,  may  establish  dangerous  examples, 
and  should  in  all  proper  ways  be  discountenanced.  The 
safer  polic}-,  I  think,  is  to  follow  its  plain  mandates  in  mat- 
ters that  may  appear  not  to  be  material,  in  order  that  the 
more  substantial  parts  may  be  duly  respected.  If  those  who 
are  delegated  with  the  trust  of  making  the  laws,  from  the 
purest  motives  improvidently  omit  the  observances  of  the 
constitution  under  any  circumstances,  such  oversight  may 
be  referred  to  in  the  future  by  others,  with  far  different 
views,  as  precedents,  and  for  the  purpose  of  abuse.  A 
higher  responsibility  is  imposed  upon  those  selected  by  the 
people  lor  the  discharge  of  legislative  duty,  and  a  greater 
obligation  is  demanded  of  them  to  exemplify,  by  their  prac- 
tice, a  careful  compliance  with  the  constitution.  J?y  a 
vigilant  observance  of  its  commands,  the  more  reasonable 
is  the  probability  that  the  best  order  will  be  secured.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  illustrate,  by  any  argument,  the  soundness 
of  this  general  consideration,  which  I  am  sure  all  will  admit 
to  be  unquestionable,  that  a  strict  conformity  is  an  axiom 


ENAi  OF    laws. 

ience  of  government.     I  certi  inly  entertain  such 
iiul  conviction  of  its  trutb  that  I  do  not  feel  author- 
re  ray  approval  to  this  act  as  a  valid  law;  but,  on 
ontrary,  am  constrain.'. 1  to  say  that  the  omission  of 
tyle  required  by  the  constitution  is   Fatal   to  its  valid- 
\  law  without  an  enacting  clause  was  held  invalid 
in  Michigan  and  in  Minnesota,  and  the  insertion  of  an  en- 
r  the  passage  of  an  act  by  the  houses  and 
■  royal  by  the,  governor  was  held  ineffectual.41     In 
Louisiana  it  is  intimated  that  the  words:  "Be  it  enacted  by 
ibly,"  would  be  sufficient,  though  the  con- 
stitution prescribes  the  words:  "Be  it  enacted  by  the  gen- 
eral assembly  of  the  state  of  Louisiana."43 

66  .  The  modern  constitutions  go  more  and  more 
into  detail  in  regulating  the  exercise  of  the  several  powers 
which  they  -rant.  The  object  is  manifestly  to  correct  ex- 
isting or  apprehended  mischief;  not  to  legislate  merely  for' 
order  and  convenient  system.  These  regulations  are  in  the 
fundamental  law;  they  express  the  sovereign  will  of  the 
people,  and  ought  to  be  treated  as  limitations  on  the  i 

of  those  powers.  The  modes  prescribed  for  the  exer- 
■anted  powers  cannot  be  severed  from  the  sub- 
stantive things  authorized  to  be  done;  the  manner  directed 
is  the  means  —  the  appointed  action  —  through  which  alone 
the  power  is  effective  for  the  substantive  objects  intended 
accomplished.  The  legislature  must  be  constituted, 
sit  at  the  time  and  place,  and  proceed  in  the  methods  dic- 
tated by  its  creator:  otherwise  it  is  not  clothed  with  nor 
exercising  the  sovereign  legislative  power.  The  great 
weight  of  authority  supports  this  view.43 

thing's  L.  &  Pr.  Leg.   Ass.  «2  state  v.  Harris,  47  La.  Ann.  886, 

:  of  Government  17  So.  I 

1  Wash.  T.  115.  "See  ante.  |§  31,  44;  post,  §  112; 

:.]    r.Dettenthaler,  118  Mich.  Cooler,  Con.  L.  94.    This  learned 

:   N.  W.  4."i0,  44  L.  R.  A.  164;  author  says  the  courts  tread  upon 

r  •  v.  9  curity  &  &   L  Co.,  73  very  dangerous  ground  when  they 

Minn.  203, 75  N.  W.  1116,32  Am.  St.  venture  to  apply  the  rules  which 

Oio.  distinguish  directory  and  manda- 


ENACTMENT   OF    LAWS. 


123 


§  74.  Enrolled  act  conclusive  as  to  words  of  statute. — 

"When  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  printed  statute 
and  the  enrolled  act,  all  the  authorities  agree  that  the  lat- 
ter  controls.44     But   where   the   discrepancy  was    in    the 


tory  statutes  to  the  provisions  of  a 
constitution.  "Constitutions  do 
not  usually  undertake  to  prescribe 
mere  rules  of  proceeding,  except 
when  such  rules  are  looked  upon 
as  essential  to  the  thing  to  be  done; 
and  they  then  must  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  limitations  upon  the 
power  to  be  exercised.  It  is  the  prov- 
inceof  an  instrument  of  this  solemn 
and  permanent  character  to  estab- 
lish those  fundamental  maxims, 
and  fix  those  unvarying  rules,  by 
which  ail  departments  of  the  gov- 
ernment must  at  all  times  shape 
their  conduct;  and  if  it  descends 
to  prescribing  mere  rules  of  order 
in  unessential  matters,  it  is  low- 
ering the  proper  dignity  of  such  an 
instrument  and  usurpingthe  proper 
province  of  ordinary  legislation. 
We  are  not.  therefore,  to  expect  to 
find  in  a  constitution  provisions 
which  the  people,  in  adoptiug  it, 
have  not  regarded  as  of  high  im- 
portance, and  worthy  to  be  em- 
braced in  an  instrument  which,  for 
a  time  at  least,  is  to  control  alike 
the  government  and  the  governed, 
and  to  form  a  standard  by  which  is 
to  be  measured  the  power  which  can 
be  exercis  d  as  well  by  the  delegate 
as  by  the  sovereign  people  them- 
selves. If  directions  are  given  re- 
specting the  times  or  modes  of  pro- 
ceeding in  which  a  power  should  be 
exercised,  there  is  at  least  a  strong 
presumption  that  the  people  de- 
signed it  should  be  exercised  in  that 
time  and  mode  only."  State  v.  John- 


son, 26  Ark.  281;  Wolcott  v.  Wig- 
ton,  7  Ind.  44;  per  Bronson  in  Peo- 
ple v.  Purely,  2  Hill,  86;  Greencastle 
Township  v.  Black.  5  Ind.  566;  Opin- 
ion of  Judges,  6  Sheply,  458.  See 
People  v.  Lawrence.  86  Barb.  177. 
"The  essential  nature  and  object 
of  constitutional  law  being  restric- 
tive upon  the  powers  of  the  several 
departments  of  the  government,  it 
is  difficult  to  comprehend  how  its 
provisions  can  be  regai'ded  as  merely 
directory."  Nicholson,  C.  J.,  in 
Cannon  v.  Mathes,  8  Heisk.  504,  517. 
Mr.  Cooiey  adds  that  "We  impute 
to  the  people  a  want  of  due  appre- 
ciation of  the  purpose  and  proper 
province  of  such  an  instrument, 
when  we  infer  that  such- directions 
are  given  to  any  other  end.  Espe- 
cially when,  as  has  been  already 
said,  it  is  but  fair  to  presume  that 
the  people  in  their  constitution 
have  expressed  themselves  in  care- 
ful and  measured  terms,  cori'e- 
sj  onding  with  the  immense  impor- 
tance of  the  powers  delegated,  and 
with  a  view  to  leave  as  little  as 
possible  to  implication."  People  v. 
Supervisors  of  Chenango, 8  N.  Y.328. 
44  Hurlburt  v.  Merriam,  3  Mich. 
144;  Reed  v.  Clark,  3  McLean,  480, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,643;  People  v. 
Commissioners,  54  N.  Y.  276,  13  Am. 
Rep.  581;  Greer  v.  State,  54  Miss. 
378;  DeBow  v.  People,  1  Denio,  9; 
Rex  v.  Jefferies,  1  Strange,  44(1; 
Wilson  v.  Duncan,  114  Ala.  659.  21 
So.  1017;  McLaughlin  v.  Menotti. 
105  Cal.  572,  38  Pac.  973:  Everett  v. 


124 


«    1  \ll   N  I'    OF     I   A  US. 


amount  of  a  penalty,  the  enrolled  aot  providing  b  greater, 
ourt  refused   to    enforce   it  after  an    acquiescence  of 
twenty  years 

>.  Adoption  of  code  or  revision  by  reference. —  It 
has  always  been  common  to  adopt  in  one  statute  by  refer- 
ence certain  provi  ;ions  of  another  statute.    There  lias  never 
"lis  question  as  to  the  validity  of  such  legisla- 
tion, or  us  to  its  effectiveness  to  accomplish  the  intent  of 
the  legislature.*8    It  is  also  not  uncommon  to  adopt  a  code 
or  general  revision   of  statutes  in  the  same  manner.     An 
instance  of  such  an  adopting  act  is  as  follows:  "That  the 
code  of  laws   prepared  under  its  authority  by  (giving  the 
names)  and  revised,  fully  examined  and   identified  by  the 
certificate  of  its  joint  committee,  and  recommended  and  re- 
1  for  adoption,  and  with  the  acts  passed  by  the  gen- 
r      assembly  of  189.")  added  thereto  by  the  codiiiers,  be, 
and  the  same  is,  hereby  adopted  and  made  of  force  as  the 


State.  33  Fla.  661, 15  So.  513;  Lamp- 
kin  v.  i  Ga.  516, 13  S.  E 
Ruckert  v.  Grand  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  1C3 
Mo.    260,  63  S.  W.  814:  Nugent  v. 
n    ■      -       ,   :"    '.  1-    So.    193; 
Bruce  v.  State,  18  Neb.  570,  07  N.W. 
154;  Lowenstein  v.  Young,  8  Okl. 
:  Pac.  164;  Weaver  v.  David- 
son Count.v.  104  Tenn.  315.  59  S.  \Y. 
1105;  Ex  parte  Tipton,  28  Tex.  Cfc 
App.  438,  13  s.  W.  610;  Johnson  v. 
Barham,  99  Va  9      , 
45  It  was  held  in  Town  of  Pacific 
ifert,  79  Ma  210,  that  the  orig- 
inal roll,  a                   I  with  t  be  sec- 
retary  of  state,  is  the  best  evidence 
of  a  legislative  enactment.  Where, 
however,  there  is  a  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  charter  of  the  town  ;i; 
published  in  the  printed   lawa  of 
state  and  the  statute  roll  on  file 
in  the  office  of  the  seer  ta  ry  oi 
in  this,  that  in  the  former  it  was 


provided  that  the  trustees  of  the 
town  might  impose  fines  for  breach 
of  any  of  the  ordinances  not  to  ex- 
ceed twenty  dollars  in  amount,  and 
in  the  latter  the  word  twenty  was 
ninety,  and  for  aught  that  appeared 
on  the  record  this  discrepancy  was 
first  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
defendant  upon  the  trial,  about 
twenty  years  after  the  enactment 
of  the  charter,  in  an  action  by  the 
town  to  recover  of  him  the  penalty 
of  $90  for  refusing  to  take  out  a 
merchant's  license  as  required  by 
an  ordinance,  it  was  held  that,  un- 
der these  exceptional  circum- 
stances, the  printed  copy  of  the 
charter  should  control  in  determin- 
ing the  defendants  liability.  See 
A.tt'y-General  v.  Joy,  55  Mich.  94; 
e  v.  Peck,  18  How.  595,  15  L. 
Ed.  518. 
«  See  post,  §§  372,  405. 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  125 

Code  of  Georgia."47  It  is  held  that  in  form  and  substance 
such  an  act  is  valid  and  effective  to  enact  and  make  of 
force  the  code  or  revision  referred  to,  that  such  code  or  re- 
vision need  not  be  read  as  prescribed  in  the  constitution  for 
bills,  that  a  title  appropriate  to  the  adopting  act  is  suffi- 
cient though  it  may  not  express  the  subject  of  the  code  or 
revision,  and  that  it  is  not  obnoxious  to  the  provision  of  the 
constitution  against  reviving  or  amending  an  act  by  refer- 
ence to  its  title  only.48 

§  76.  Statutes  and  Jegislative  rules  relating  to  the 
enactment  of  laws. —  It  is  competent  for  legislative  bodies 
to  adopt  rules  of  procedure,  and  such  power  is  frequently 
conferred  in  express  terms  by  the  constitution.  In  speak- 
ing of  this  power  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States 
says:  "The  constitution  empowers  each  house  to  determine 
its  rules  of  proceedings.  It  may  not  by  its  rules  ignore 
constitutional  restraints  or  violate  fundamental  rights,  and 
there  should  be  a  reasonable  relation  between  the  mode  or 
method  of  proceeding  established  by  the  rule  and  the  result 
which  is  sought  to  be  attained.  But  within  these  limita- 
tions all  matters  of  method  are  open  to  the  determination 
of  the  house,  and  it  is  no  impeachment  of  the  rule  to  say 
that  some  other  way  would  be  better,  more  accurate  or 
even  more  just.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  validity  of  a  rule 
that  a  different  one  has  been  prescribed  and  in  force  for  a 
length  of  time.  The  power  to  make  rules  is  not  one  which 
once  exercised  is  exhausted.  It  is  a  continuous  power, 
always  subject  to  be  exercised  by  the  house,  and,  within  the 
limitations  suggested,  absolute  and  beyond  the  challenge  of 
any  other  body  or  tribunal."49 

47  Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  the  same,  and   for  making  indices 

State,  104  Ga.  831,  31  S.  E.  531,  42  thereto,  and  for  other  purposes."' 
L.  K.  A.  518.     The  title  of  the  adopt-        4»  Mathis  v.  State,  31  Fla.  291,  12 

ing  act  was  as  follows:  "An  act  to  So.  681;  Central  of  Geoi-gia  Ry.  Co. 

approve,  adopt  and  make  of  force  v.  State,  104  Ga.  831,  31  S.  E.  531, 

the  code  of  laws  prepared   under  42  L.  R.  A.  518;  Hunt  v.  Wright,  70 

the  direction  and  by  authority  of  Miss.  298,  11  So.  608. 
the  general  assembly,  to  provide        49  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U. 

for  the  printing  and  publication  of  S.  1,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  507,  36  L.  Ed.  321. 


KNA<    I'MKN'l     01      I   ' 


a  held  that  an  act  cannot  be  declared  invalid  for  fail- 
ure o!  the  legislature,  or  of  either  house,  to  observe  its  own 
j,  and  that  the  courts  will   not  whether  such 

rules  have  been  observed  in  the  passage  of  an  act.80    So  it 
is  held  that  one  legislature  cannot  bind  or  restrict  its  suc- 
:  statutes  as  to  the  manner  of  legislation, 
and  that  an  act  will  not  be  declared  invalid  for  failure  to 
rve  Buch  statutory  requirements.81 


The  following  rule  of  the  house  of 

0  vio- 
lid  down  in  the 
text:  "On  the  demand  of  any  menti- 
on  of  the 
of    members 
quorum  in  the 
hall  i  ho  do  not  vote 

be  noted  by  the  clerk  an 
lurnal,  and  repi 
to  the  speaker  with   the  names  of 
the  voting,     and     be 

counted  and  announced  in  deter- 
mining the  presence  of  a  quorum 
to  do  I 

3witzer  v.  Territory,  5  Ok!. 
..  Brown, 
51,  11  S.  E.641;  aid  v. 

..  80  Wia  407,  50  N.  W.  185;  In 
Vis.  414,  50  N.  W. 
.     .  .  v.  Gill,  54 

Ark.  101,  1")  S.   W.   is.     In  McDon- 
..  State  the  court  says:  "The 
•ts  will  take  judicial  notice  of 
s  1  iws  of  the  state,  and 
i  they  will  take  like  no- 
<>f  the  contents  of  the  journals 

far  enough  to  determine  whether 

tS  a  law  v. 
I     by    the 

Further 
•    ■•  courts  will  n< 
nil 


noinquiry  will  be  permitted 

to  ascertain  whether  the  two 
bouses  have  or  have  not  complied 
strictly  with  their  own  rules  in 
their  procedure  upon  the  bill  in- 
termediate its  introduction  and 
final  passage.  The  presumption  is 
conclusive  that  they  have  done  so. 
We  think  no  court  has  ever  de- 
clared an  act  ol  the  legislature 
void  for  non-compliance  with  tho 
rules  of  procedure  made  by  i 
or  tin'  respi  tive  branches  thei 
and  which  it  or  they  may  change 
or  suspend  at  will.  If  there 
any  such  adjudications  we  decline 
to  follow  them." 

51  Cook  v.  State,  2G  Ind.  App.  278, 
59  N.  E.  489;  State  v.  Wirt  County 
Court,  37  W.  Va.  808,  17  S.  E. 
Marrigault  v.  Ward,  123  Fed.  70?. 
In  the  last  case  the  court  s 
'■  In  the  case  at  bar  there  was  no 
constitutional  requirement  which 
has  '"eeu  violated.     The  provi 
of  an  act  of  a  preceding  lej 
turehave  not  been  followed  in  the 
matter  oi  notice  required  by  the 
act.     hoes  this  make   this  act  in- 
valid'.'    The   legislative   power    in 
South    Carolina    is   vested  in  the 
general  assembly.     The  constitu- 
tion fixes  the  power  of  the  general 
assembly.     Each  general  assembly 
esses  all  these  powers,  and  is 


ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  127 

§  77.  Federal  courts  follow  state  courts. —  In  determin- 
ing whether  a  state  statute  has  been  duly  passed  and  what 
is  the  proper  evidence  thereof,  the  federal  courts  will  follow 
the  rules  laid  down  by  the  state  supreme  court.52  In  the 
absence  of  state  decisions  the  federal  rules  will  be  followed.53 

§  78.  Notice  of  private  and  local  bills. —  The  constitu- 
tion of  New  Jersey  provides  that  "no  private,  special  or 
local  bill  shall  be  passed  unless  public  notice  of  the  inten- 
tion to  apply  therefor,  and  of  the  general  object  thereof, 
shall  have  been  previously  given."54  It  also  provides  that 
the  legislature  shall  prescribe  the  mode  of  giving  notice,  the 
evidence  thereof,  and  how  such  evidence  shall  be  preserved. 
Similar  provisions  are  found  in  the  constitutions  of  other 
states.  Sometimes  the  mode  of  giving  notice  is  prescribed 
by  the  constitution  and  sometimes  it  is  left  to  the  legislature, 
it  is  held  that  an  amendment  of  a  private  or  local  law  must 
be  notified  in  the  same  manner  as  an  original  act.55  Some 
courts  hold  that  the  legislature  is  the  exclusive  judge  of 
whether  the  required  notice  was  given.56   Other  courts  hold 

subject  to  no  limitation  not  found  bill  which  has  not  fulfilled  these 
in  the  constitution.  One  legisla-  conditions,  this  action  on  its  part 
ture,  therefore,  cannot  curtail  or  is  either  a  declaration  of  its  inde- 
enlarge  the  power  of  am  succeed-  pendence  of  these  restrictions  or  it 
ing  legislature,  unless,  indeed,  is  a  repeal  of  the  previous  act  pro 
within  its  constitutional  powers  a  tanto."  pp.  716-717.  In  Chalfant 
legislature  has  entered  into  a  con-  v.  Edwards,  173  Pa.  St.  246,  33  Atl. 
tract  with  a  third  party.  Such  a  1048,  an  act  prescribing  how  no- 
contract  is  protected  under  the  tice  should  be  given  of  an  applica- 
constitutiou  of  the  United  States,  tion  for  a  local  law  was  held  bind- 
When,  therefore,  one  general  as-  ing  on  future  legialatures  until  re- 
sembly  passes  an  act  like  this  in  pealed. 

question,   declaring    that    no    bill  52  In  re  Duncan,  139  U.S.  449,  11 

shall  be  introduced  or  entertained  S.  C.  Rep.  573,  35  L.  Ed.  219;  Stan- 

iu  either  house  of  the  general  as-  ley  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Coler,  96  Fed.  284, 

sembly,  unless  certain  prerequisite  37  C.  C.  A.  484. 

conditions    are     fulfilled  —  condi-  &:j  Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

tious  not  existing  in  the  constitu-  64  Fed.  165. 

tion, —  it  assumes  a  power  which  it  54  Art.  4,  sec.  7,  par.  9. 

does  not  possess.    If,  not  withstand-  88Ashbrook  v.  Schaub,  160  Mo. 

ing,  any  succeeding  general  assem-  107,  60  S.  W.  10S5. 

bly  shall  receive  and  entertain  a  ™  Stockton  v.  Powell,  29  Fla.  1, 


128 


1   N ACIMI   N  I     OB      LAWS. 


;  is  a  judicial  question  and,  if  the  prescribed  notice  is 

not  sriven,  the  act  is  void.'      Notice  will  be  presumed  in  the 

.  dence  to  the  contrary.88     A  special  act  to  in- 

rate  a  borough,  embracing  different  territory  than  is 

Bed  in  the  notice,  is  invalid.89 

.'.  Where  t lie  power  to  legislate  on  a  subject  is  con- 
ditioned upon  the  existence  of  certain  facts. —  The  con- 
stitution of  Missouri  forbids  the  establishment  of  criminal 
court-  except  in  counties  having  a  population  exceeding 
fifty  thousand.  Where  the  legislature  established  such  a 
court  for  a  certain  county,  reciting  in  the  act  that  it  had  a 
population  of  over  fifty  thousand,  it  was  hold  that  the  find- 

■  f  the  legislature  was  conclusive.60  A  similar  ruling  has 


-   15  L.  R  A.  42;  Speer  v. 
19,11  S.  E.  80  '.  9  T, 
!.\  A.        ;Reed  v.  McCrary,  9 

.';   ditcher  v.  Craw- 

105  Ga.  L80,  31  S.  E.  139.     In 

■ .  i         ,  115  Ga   266,  41 

.it  is  said  that  the  giving 

of  notice  will  be  presumed  unless 

i  v  appears  from  the  jour- 

To  same  effect,  Keene  v.  Jef- 

.'i  County,  135   Ala.  46:3,33  So. 

late   v.  Trenton,   57   N.  J.  L. 
31   All.  223;  Attorney-General 
ton,  H7   N.  J.  L.  120,   50 
.  Chalfant  v.  Edwards,  173 
•    246,  33  At!.  104a     In    the 
first  case  the  court  says:  "  We  are 
of  the  opinion   that  the   constitu- 
tional  prescription,  not  only  that 
the  legislature  shall  fix  the  time 
mo  le  of  giving  the  notice,  hut 
that  it  shall  also    prescrihe  what 
Bhall  be  evidence  of  the  notice  and 
how  bui  h  evidence  shall  be  pre- 
to  the  conclusion  that 
Buch  evidence  was  to  he  preserved 
for  a  pun  i  than  mi  re  leg- 


islative convenience.  "We  think 
the  intent  to  be  deduced  from  the 
constitutional  language  is  that  re- 
sort can  he  had  to  this  evidence 
lever  it  becomes  necessary  to 
mine  in  a  court  whether  this 
condition    ■  ititu- 

tional  special  statute  has  an  exist- 
ence."    p.  320. 

ity  v.  Me  Michael,  12  Pa.  Dist, 
Ct.  403. 

w  Attorney-General  v.  Tucker- 
ton.  67  N.  J.  L.  120,  50  All.  602. 

«°Ex  parte  Renfrow,  112  Mo.  591, 
20S.  W.  682*  Thecourt  -ays:  "And 
it  now  maybe  considered  settled 
law  in  this  state,  that  when  it  be- 
comes necessary  for  the  legislative 
department  of  the  state  to  inquire 
into  and  determine  a  question  of 
fact  upon  which  depends  its  power 
under  constitutional  restrictions  to 
enacl  a  law.  and  they  do  so  inquire 
and  determine  that  fact,  it  will  not 
be  again  inquired  into  by  the  ju- 
dicial department  of  the  state  in  a 
collateral  proceeding."    p.  598. 


ENACTMENT    OF   LAWS.  129 

been  made  in  "West  Virginia  under  a  provision  which  for- 
bids local  or  special  laws  incorporating  a  municipality 
containing  a  less  population  than  two  thousand.61  So  where 
the  constitution  required  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  electors 
of  a  county  before  an  act  could  be  passed  removing  the 
county  seat.62  It  is  held  that  no  recital  of  the  facts  in  the 
statute  is  necessary.  And  where  the  constitution  forbids 
the  formation  of  a  new  county  with  less  than  two  thousand 
population,  it  was  held  that  the  passage  of  an  act  creating 
a  new  county  was  equivalent  to  a  finding  that  the  necessary 
population  existed.63  The  question  has  been  elaborately 
considered  in  California  under  a  constitutional  provision 
forbidding  any  gift  of  public  money  or  property  to  any  in- 
dividual. The  supreme  court  holds  that  the  validity  of  an 
act  appropriating  public  money  or  propert}'  to  an  individual 
must  be  determined  by  what  appears  on  the  face  of  the  stat- 
ute. The  court  says:  "While  the  courts  have  undoubted  power 
to  declare  a  statute  invalid,  when  it  appears  to  them  in  the 
course  of  judicial  action  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  constitution, 
yet  they  can  only  do  so  when  the  question  arises  as  a  pure 
question  of  law,  unmixed  with  matters  of  fact  the  existence  of 
which  must  be  determined  upon  a  trial,  and  as  the  result 
of,  it  may  be,  conflicting  evidence.  When  the  right  to  en- 
act a  law  depends  upon  the  existence  of  facts,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  legislature  before  passing  the  bill,  and  of  the  gov- 
ernor before  approving  it,  to  become  satisfied  in  some  ap- 
propriate way  that  the  facts  exist;  and  no  authority  is 
conferred  upon  the  courts  to  hear  evidence,  and  determine, 
as  a  question  of  fact,  whether  these  co-ordinate  departments 
of  the  state  government  have  properly  discharged  such  duty. 
The  authority  and  duty  to  ascertain  the  facts  which  ought 
to  control  legislative  action  are,  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  devolved  by  the  constitution  upon  those  to  whom  it 

61  Roby  v.   Shepard,  42  W.   Va.        63  Farquharson    v.    Teargin,    2 ! 
286.  26  S.  E.  278.  Wash.  549,  64  Pac.  717. 

e2Cutc!ier  v.  Crawford,  105  Ga. 
180,  13  S.  E.  189. 
9 


KN.UMMKN  C    OF    LAWS. 

has  given  the  power  to  legislate,  and  their  decision  that  tho 
facta  exist  is  conclusive  upon  the  courts,  in  the  absence  of 
an  explicit  provision  in  the  constitution  giving  the  judiciary 
the  right  to  review  such  action.  We  therefore  hold  that,  in 
passing  apon  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute,  tho  court 
must  confine  itself  to  a  consideration  of  those  matters  which 
appear  upon  the  face  of  the  law,  and  those  facts  of  which 
it  can  take  judicial  notice.  If  the  law,  when  thus  consid- 
ered, does  not  appear  to  be  unconstitutional,  the  court  will 
not  go  behind  it;  and,  by  a  resort  to  evidence,  undertake  to 
lain  whether  the  legislature,  in  its  enactment, observed 
the  restrictions  which  the  constitution  imposed  upon  it  as  a 
duty  to  do,  and  to  the  performance  of  which  its  members 
were  bound  by  their  oath  of  oiiice."64 

§  SO.  Miscellaneous  cases  as  to  procedure  in  the  enact- 
ment of  laws. —  Where  an  act  was  invalid  by  reason  of  in- 
formality in  its  passage,  it  was  held  that  a  later  act  of  the 
same  session,  referring  to  it  as  a  law  and  requiring  the  sec- 
retary of  state  to  have  live  thousand  copies  thereof  printed 
and  distributed  among  the  officers  of  the  state  whose  duty 
it  was  to  carry  it  into  execution,  amounted  to  a  ratification 
and  attestation  of  the  act  so  as  to  constitute  it  a  valid  law.65 
A  senate  bill  was  amended  in  the  house,  resulting  in  a  dis- 
agreement and  a  conference  committee,  which  recom- 
mended that  the  house  recede  from  its  amendments.  The 
house  did  so,  the  question  being  put  as  follows:  "  Shall  the 
house  recede  from  the  amendments  and  adopt  the  report  of 
the  conference  committee  ?  "  This  motion  being  carried,  it 
was  held  sufficient  without  repassing  the  bill.66  The  con- 
stitution of   Missouri  provides  that  "  no  bill  shall  be  so 

•  venson  v.   Cotgan,   01   Cal.  gan, 97  Cal.  251,  31  Pac.  1133;  Con- 
or.*, 27   I'ac.  1039,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  tin   v.   Supervisors,  99  Cal.  17,   33 

1  L  R  A.  459.     Also  Rankin  Pac.  753,  37  Am.  St  Rep.  17,  21  L. 

v.  Colgan,  02  Cal.  605,  28  Pac.  G73;  R.  A.  474 

Bourn  v.  Hart,  93  Cal  321,  28  Pac.  65  Wrought  Iron  Range  Co.  v.  Car- 

951,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  203,  15  LRA.  ver,  118  N.  C.  328,  24  S.  E.  352. 

431;    Oreen  v.  Fresno  County,  95  Mi  Robertson  r.  People,  20   Cola 

Cal  329,  30  Pac.  544;  Patty  v.  Col-  279,  38  Pac.  326. 


ENACTMENT   OF   LAWS.  131 

Amended  in  its  passage  through  either  house  as  to  change 
its  original  purpose."67  This  was  held  to  refer  to  the  gen- 
eral purpose  of  the  bill  and  not  to  the  details  by  which  the 
purpose  is  manifested  and  effectuated.68  In  the  absence  of 
constitutional  provisions  to  the  contrary,  a  majority  consti- 
tutes a  quorum  and  a  majority  of  a  quorum  may  pass  a  bill.69 
When  the  constitution  requires  a  two-thirds  vote  to  pass 
certain  acts,  one  passed  by  a  less  vote  is  held  to  be  void.70 
In  New  York  the  certificate  of  the  presiding  officers  that  an 
act  was  passed  by  the  requisite  vote  is  held  to  be  conclu- 
sive, but  if  the  certificate  is  silent  on  the  question  it  may  be 
aided  by  the  journals.71  Where  an  act  had  been  in  oper- 
ation for  ten  years  and  had  been  acted  upon  by  the  courts 
in  a  number  of  cases,  the  court  refused  to  go  back  of  the 
enrolled  act  to  see  whether  it  was  properly  passed.72  Where 
the  constitution  required  that  certain  acts  should  be  ap- 
proved by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  electors  of  the  state  be- 
fore going  into  effect,  it  was  held  that  the  court  would  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  result  of  the  election.73 

«7  Art.  4,  seo.  25.  ™  State  v^  Stearns,  72  Minn.  200, 

estate  v.  Mason,  135  Mo.  486,  55  75  N.W.210.   The  court  says:  "The 

S.  W.  636.  validity  of  this  law  depends  upon 

69  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  whether  it  received  a  majority  of 
S.  1,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  507,  86  L.  Ed.  321.  all  the  votes  cast  at  the  election, 

70  Allen  v.  Board  of  State  Audit-  not  on  the  subsequent  act  or  omis- 
ors,  122  Mich.  324,  81  N.  "W.  113,  80  sion  of  the  state  canvassing  board, 
Am.  St.  Rep.  573,  47  L.  R.  A.  117;  or  of  any  other  officers.  For  the 
Palmer  v.  Zumbrota,  72  Minn.  2G6,  purpose  of  determining  this  fact 
75  N.  W.  380.  the  court  will  take  judicial  notice 

71Rumsey  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  of  the  election  records,  returns  and 

R.  Co.,  130  N.  Y.  88,  28  N.  E.  763;  canvass  thereof  by  the  state  board 

Matter  of  New  York  &  Long  lsl-  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of 

and  Bridge  Co.,  148  N.  Y.  540,  42  N.  state,  and,  if  necessary,  of  theelec- 

E.  1088.  tion   returns  and  canvass  in  the 

T-  Mitchell  v.  Campbell,  19  Ore.  offices  of  the  several  county  audit- 

198,  2 1  Pac.  455  ors  of  the  state." 


CHAPTER  III. 


VALIDITY  OF  STATUTES  IN  GENERAL  AND  DELEGATION  OF 
THE  LEGISLATIVE  POWER 

I.  The  constitution  a  limitation  —  Legislative  au- 
thority plenary. —  It  is  universally  held  that  state  consti- 
tutions are  not  a  grant  but  a  limitation  of  the  legislative 

•r;  that  the  legislature  has  plenary  power  of  legislation 
and  may  pass  any  law  not  forbidden  by  the  constitution  of 
the  state  or  of  the  United  States.1  "  Every  subject  not  with- 
drawn from  its  authority  may  he  acted  upon  by  that  body."2 
In  creating  a  legislative  department  and  conferring  upon 

jislative  power,  the  people  must  be  understood  to  have 


i Sli*-;  pard  v.  Dowling,  127  Ala.  1, 
,85   Am.   St.    Rep.   G8; 
Mitchell  v.  Winkek,  U7CaL520,49 
Pac.  579;   People  v.  Richmond,   16 
274,  26  Pac.  929:  In  re  Kinder- 
garten Schools,  18  Colo.  234, 32  Pac. 
L9  L.  R.  A.  469;  State  v.  Bulke- 
Bl    Conn.  2S7,  23  Atl.  1S6,  14  L. 
R.  .\.  657;  People  v.  Thorn]  son,  L55 
111.  451, 40 N.  E.  307;  People  v.  Kirk. 
162  111.  138,45  N.  E.  830,  53  Am.  St 
Rep.  277;  People  v.  Onahan,  170  111. 
-    '".   E.  1003;    Townsend  v. 
State,  147  Ind.  624,  47  N.  E.  I 
Am.  St.   Rep.  177,  37  L.  R    A   294; 
Purnell  v.  Mann,  105  Ky.  87,  48  S. 
W.  407;  Bughes  v.Murdock,  15  La 
Ann.  935,  13  s-,.  182;  Ex  parte  Rob- 
166  Ma  207,65  S.  W.726;  State 
v.  French,  17  Mont.  54,  11  Pac.  1078, 
30  L  R  A  415;  Magneau  v.  Fre- 
mont, 30  Neb.  843,  17  N.  W.  280,  27 
-t.   B  ■[..    136,  9   I..  R  A  786; 
Koch  v.  New  York,  5  A  pp.  Div.  276, 


39  N.  Y.  S.  164;  People  v.  Young,  18 
App.  Div.  162,  45  N.  Y.  S.  772;  South- 
ern Gum  Co.  v.  Laylin,  G6  Ohio  St. 
578,  64  N.  E.  564;  State  v.  Compson, 
34  Ore.  25,  54  Pac.  349;  Stratton 
Claimants  v.  Morris  Claimants,  SO 
Te  n.  497,  15  S.W.  446;  McCully  v. 
State,  102  Tenn.  009,  53  S.  W.  134, 
46  L.  R.  A  567;  Dayton  Coal  &  Iron 
Co.  v.  Barton,  103  Tenn.  601.  53  S.W. 
970;  Phillips  v.  Lewis,  3  Tenn.  I 
state  v.  Brownson,  94Te.\. 
61S.W.  Ill;  Kimball  v.  Grantsville 
City,  19  Utah,  308,  57  Pac.  1;  State 
v.  Cherry,  22  Utah.  1,  00  Par.  1103; 
l'i  ,ii  Ass'd  v.  Ashby,  93  Va.  607, 
25  S.  E.  893;  Brown  v.  Epps,  91  Va. 
726,  21  S.  E.  119,  27  L.  R.  A.  1076; 
Northwestern  National  Bank  v.  Su- 
perior, 103  Wia  43,  79  N.  W.  54; 
State  v.  Henderson,  4  Wyo.  535.  35 
Pac  517. 

-  Wilson  v.  Sanitary  Trustees,  133 
IIL  443,  458,  27  N.  E.  203. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENEKAL.  133 

conferred  the  full  and  complete  power  as  it  rests  in,  and 
may  be  exercised  by,  the  sovereign  power  of  any  countr}', 
subject  only  to  such  restrictions  as  they  may  have  seen  fit 
to  impose,  and  to  the  limitations  which  are  contained  in  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States.3  Speaking  of  the  legisla- 
tive power  the  supreme  court  of  Utah  says:  "It  is  wholly 
within  the  discretion  of  the  legislature  to  determine 
whether,  concerning  any  subject,  such  conditions  or  such 
facts  and  circumstances  exist  as  to  warrant  it  to  act.  It 
is  the  sole  judge  as  to  whether  an  exigency  or  such  cause 
exists  as  requires  the  enactment  of  a  law,  and,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  constitutional  restriction,  if  it  makes  a  law 
there  is  no  authority  in  the  government  which  can  declare 
it  void.  Independently  of  any  repugnance  between  a  legis- 
lative act  and  any  constitutional  limitation  or  restriction,  a 
court  has  no  power  to  arrest  its  execution,  however  unwise 
or  unjust  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  it  may  be,  or  what- 
ever motives  may  have  led  to  its  enactment."4  Congress 
is  a  body  with  enumerated  powers,  and  can  only  pass  such 
laws  as  are  within  the  grant  of  the  federal  constitution.5 

§82.  Presumption  in  favor  of  validity. —  Every  pre- 
sumption is  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  an  act  of  the  legisla- 
ture, and  all  doubts  are  resolved  in  support  of  the  act.6     "  In 

3  In  re  House  Roll  No.  284, 31  Neb.  Lands,  18  Colo.  359,  32  Pac.  986; 

505,  48  N.  W.  275.  United  States  v.  Seymour,  10  App. 

•»  Kimball  v.  Grantsville  City,  19  Cas.  (D.  C.)  294;  Holton  v.  State,  28 

Utah,  368,  883,  57  Pao.  1.  Fla.  303,  9  So.  716;  County  Com'rs  v. 

5  Brown  v.  Epps,  91  Va.  726,  21  S.  Jacksonville,  36  Fla.  196,  18  So.  339; 

E.  119,  27  L.  R.  A.  676;  Weister  v.  State  v.  Hooker,  36  Fla.  358,  18  So. 

Hade,  52  Pa.  St.  474,  477;  People  v.  767;  State  v.  Burns,  38  Fla.  367,  21 

Flagg,  46  N.  Y.  401.  So.  290;  People  v.  Nelson,  133  111. 

estate  v.  Ropers.  107  Ala.  444,  19  565,  27  N.  E.  217;  Harmon  v.  Chi- 

So.  909;   Ala.  Great  Southern  Ry.  cago,  140  111.  374,  396,  29  N  E.  782; 

Co.  v.  Reed,  124  Ala.  258,  27  So.  19,  People  v.  Gaulter,  149  111.  39,  36  N. 

82  Am.  St.  Rep.  166;  In  re  Madera  E.  576;  Parker  v.  State,  133  Ind.  178, 

Irr.  Dist.,  92  Cal.  296,  28  Pao.  272,  32  N.  E.  836,  18  L.  R.  A.  567;  State 

675,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  106,  14  L.  R.  A.  v.  Roby,  142  Ind.  168,  41  N.  E.  145, 

755;  Hale  v.  McGettigan,  114  Cal.  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  174,  33  L.  R.  A.  213; 

112,  120,  45  Pac.  1049;  In  re  State  State  v.  Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439,  44 


134 


vai  ii'ii'Y   OF  BTAT1  n  S   i\   (.1  m  i;m.. 


determining  the  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, courts  always  presume  in  the  first  place  that  the  act 

QStitutional.  They  also  presume  that  the  legislature 
acted  with  integrity,  and  with  an  honest  purpose  to  keep 
within  the  restrictions  and  limitations  laid  down  by  the 
constitution.  The  Legislature  is  a  co-ordinate  department 
of  the  government,  invested  with  high  and  responsible  du- 
ties, and  it  must  be  presumed  that  it  has  considered  and 
the  constitutionality  of  all  measures  passed  by  it."  ' 
The  unconstitutionality  must  be  clear  or  the  act  will  be  sus 
tained.8     Acquiescence  in  the  validity  of  a  statute  for  many 

3    will  have  weight,  if  there  is  room  for  doubt.9    Con- 
Btitutional  questions  will  not  be  considered  if  there  are  other 


N.  E.  409:  Maule  Coal  Co.  v.  Par- 

tbenheimer,155Ind.  100, 55  N.  E.  751 ; 

Smith  v.  Indianapolis  St  Ky.  Co., 

158  End.  425,  03  N.  E.  849;   In  re 

Pinckiu-y.  47  Kan.  89,  27  Pac. 

Purnell  v.  Mann.  105  Ky. 

W.  407;  State  v.   Capdevielle,  104 

La.  561,  29  So.  215:  State  v.  Tibbets, 

58,71  N.  W.  990, 66  Am.  St. 

Rep.  492;  State  v.  Stewart,  52  Neb. 

;  l  N.  W.  'JUS;  State  v.  Cornell, 

b.  117,81   N.  W.  431;  State  v. 

lard  Oil  Co..  61  Neb.  28,  84  N. 

W.  413,  ^7  Am.  St.  Rep.  449;  State 

v.  Westerfield.  21  Nev.  29,  49  Pac. 

554;  stat-  v.  Moore,  lot  N.  C.  714, 

10  S.  E.  143,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  696; 

euse,  129  N.  V.  316, 

J89;  Fort  v.  Cummins,  90 

Hun,  I  V.  s.  36;  Silberman 

v.  Hay.  59  Ohio  St  582,  53  N.  Ii  258; 

•  ■   v.  Willamette  Bridge  Co., 

ire  167,  2!»  Pac  440,  15  L.  R. 

i :  In  re  Sugar  Notch  Bor.,  192 

19,    ;:;    Atl.    In:  St: 

osett,  16  R.  I.  424, 

•    I.  'Mil;  State  v.  Morgan,  2  S. 

D.  32      -  N.  W.  314;  Cole  Mfg.  Co. 


v.  Palis,  90  Tenn.  466,  16  S.  W.  1015; 
Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  Tenn.  82, 
65  s.  \V.  871;  State  v.  Sopher,  25 
Utah,  318,  71  Pac.  482;  Trehy  v. 
Maiye.lOOVa.  40,40  S.E.  126;  Young 
v.  Commonwealth,  101  Va.  853; 
Charleston  &  Southside  Bridge  Co. 
v.  Kanawha  Co.  Ct,  41  W.  Va.  658, 
24  S.  E.  1002;  South  Morgantown 
v.  Morgantown,  49  W.  Va.  729,  40 
S.  E.  15;  State  v.  Board  of  Control, 
85  Minn.  165,  88  N.  W.  533;  Butt- 
field  v.  Shanahan,  192  U.  S.  470. 

"Beach  v.  Van  Detton,  139  CaL 
462,  73  Pac.  187. 

8  Sabin  v.  Curtis,  3  Idaho,  662,  32 
Pac.  1130;  Kansas  City  v.  Scarritt, 
127  Mo.  642,  29  S.  W.  845,  30  S.  W. 
Ill :  Sutton  v.  Phillips,  116 N.  C.  502, 
21  S.  E.  968;  Cook  v.  Port  of  Port- 
land, 20  Ore.  580,  27  Pac.  263,  18 
L.  R  A.  533;  Reeves  v.  Anderson, 
13  Wash.  17,  42  Pac.  625;  Reid  v. 
Colorado.  187  U.  S.  137,  23  S.  C. 
Rep.  92. 

9  Cameron  v.  ChieaKO.etc.  Ry.  Co., 
63  Minn.  384,  65  N.  W.  652. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


135 


sufficient  grounds  upon  which  to  rest  the  decision  of  the 
court.10  Nor  will  the  validity  of  a  statute  be  passed  upon 
in  advance  of  its  taking  effect.11 

§  83.  Statutes  construed,  if  possible,  so  as  to  be  valid. 
Another  universal  principle  applied  in  considering  consti- 
tutional questions  is,  that  an  act  will  be  so  construed,  if 
possible,  as  to  avoid  conflict  with  the  constitution,12  although 


10  Chicago  &  Southeastern  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Glover,  159  Ind.  166,  62  N.  E.  11; 
State  v.  Wright,  159  Ind.  394,  65  N. 
E.  190;  Hart  v.  State,  159  Ind.  182, 
64  N.  E.  661;  Elliott  v.  Oliver,  22 
Ore.  44,  29  Pac.  1;  McDonnell  v. 
De  Soto  L.  &  B.  Ass'n,  175  Mo. 
250,  75  S.  W.  438;  State  v.  King,  28 
Mont.  268. 

11  State  v.  Superior  Court,  25 
Wash.  271,  65  Pac.  183. 

12  Boiling  v.  Le  Grand,  87  Ala. 
482,  6  So.  332;  Chambers  v.  Solner, 
1  Alaska,  271;  In  re  Wynn-John- 
son,  1  Alaska,  630;  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.  Express  v.  Crawford  Co.,  63 
Ark.  576,  40  S.  W.  710,  37  L.  R. 
A.  371;  Dobson  v.  State,  69  Ark. 
376,  63  S.  W.  796;  Western  Granite 
&  Marble  Co.  v.  Knickerbocker,  103 
Cal.  Ill,  37  Pac.  192;  San  Francisco 
v.  Broderick,  125  Cal.  188,  57  Pac. 
887;  Park  v.  Candler,  113  Ga.  647, 
39  S.  E.  89;  People  v.  Nelson,  133 
111.  565,  27  N.  E.  217;  State  v.  Ger- 
hardt,  145  Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  469; 
State  v.  Capdevielle,  104  La.  561,29 
So.  215;  Drennen  v.  Banks,  80  Md. 
310,  30  At!.  655;  Garrison  v.  Hill, 
81  Md.  551,  557,  32  Atl.  191;  Attor- 
ney-General v.  Williams,  178  Mass. 
330,  59  N.  E.  812;  Osborn  v.  Charle- 
voix Circuit  Judge,  114  Mich.  655, 
660,  72  N.  W.  982;  McCormick  v. 
West  Duluth,  47  Minn.  272,  50  N. 
W.  128;  State  v.  Mason,  153  Mo.  23, 


54  S.  W.  524;  Powell  v.  Sherwood, 
162  Mo.  605,  63  S.  W.  485;  Amer- 
ican B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Rain  bolt,  48 
Neb.  434,  67  N.  W.  493;  State  v. 
Atlantic  City,  56  N.  J.  L.  232,  28 
Atl.  427;  State  v.  Town  of  Union, 
62  N.  J.  L.  142,  40  Atl.  632;  People 
v.  Terry,  108  N.  Y.  1,  14  N.  E.  815; 
Matter  of  New  York  &  Long  Island 
Bridge  Co.,  148  N.  Y.  540,  42  N.  E. 
1088;  Bohmer  v.  Haffen,  161  N.  Y. 
390,  55  N.  E.  1047;  Sugden  v.  Par- 
tridge, 174  N.  Y.  87,  66  N.  E.  655; 
Koelesch  v.  New  York,  34  App. 
Div.  98,  54  N.  Y.  S.  110;  Northrop 
v.  Hoyt,  31  Ore.  524,  49  Pac.  754; 
Henry  v.  Henry,  31  S.  C.  2,  9  S.  E. 
726;  Segars  v.  Parrott,  54  S.  C.  1, 
31  S.  E.  677,  865;  Bugger  v.  Ins. 
Co.,  95  Tenn.  245,  32  S.  W.  5,  28  L, 
R.  A.  796;  State  v.  Schlitz  Brew- 
ing Co.,  104  Tenn.  715,  59  S.  W. 
1033,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  941;  Johnson 
v.  Harriscorn,  90  Tex.  321, 38  S.  W. 
761;  Madden  v.  Hardy,  92  Tex.  613, 

50  S.  W.  926;  Searcy  v.  State,  40 
Tex.  Crim.  App.  460,  50  S.  W.  699, 

51  S.  W.  1119,  53  S.  W.  344;  Martin 
v.  South  Salem  Land  Co.,  94  Va. 
28,  26  S.  E.  591;  State  v.  Workman, 

35  W.  Va.  367, 14  S.  E.  9,  14  L.  R. 
A.   600;  Brown  v.  Point  Pleasant, 

36  W.  Va.  290.  15  S.  E.  209;  John- 
son  v.  Milwaukee,  88  Wis.  383,  60 
N.  W.  270;  State  v.  Stevens,  112 
Wis.   170,  88  N.  W.   48;  Patapsco 


\  Al   1 1  <  I  IV     01     ST  A  UN  S     l.N     (,IM   i;  Al  . 

such  a  construction  may  not  be  the  most  obvious  or  natural 

one."  "'I'ln'  OOUrtS  may  resort  to  an  implication  to  sustain  a 
statute,  but  not  to  destroy  it.1'"  But  the  courts  cannot  go 
I  Qyond  the  province  <»t'  legitimate  construction,  in  order  to 

Bave  a  statin  i;  and  where  the  meaning  is  plain,  words  can- 
not he  read  into  it  or  out  of  it  for  that  purpose.15 

si.  Fraud  or  conspiracy  in  passing  act. —  An  act  will 
•dared  invalid  because  its  passage  was  procured 
by  fraud  and  imposition  practiced  on  the  legislature,16  or 
because  it  was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  between  members 
of  the  legislature  and  outside  parties,17  or  of  improper  mo- 
tives actuating  the  legislature.1*  The  courts  will  not  inquire 
into  char,  es  of  this  nature,  and  will  conclusively  presume 
that  the  legislature  acted  honestly  and  understanding])'. 
In  one  case  it  is  said  that  "the  motives  which  induced  leg- 
islative action  are  not  a  subject  of  judicial  inquiry;  and  a 
legislative  act  cannot  he  declared  unconstitutional  becaus  >, 
in  the  opinion  of  a  court,  it  was  or  might  have  been  the  re- 
sult of  improper  considerations.  A  court  is  neither  a  di- 
rector of  the  discretion  of  a  legislator,  nor  the  keeper  of  his 
conscience."  19 

§85.  Considerations  of  the  justice,  wisdom  and  policy 
of  statutes  — Spirit  of  the  constitution.— Statutes  cannot 
be  declared  invalid  on  the  ground  that  they  are  unwise,  un- 

Guano   Co.  v.  North  Carolina,   171  15  S.  W.  521;  Walters  v.  Richard- 

U.   S.  345.  18  S.   C.  Rep.  862.  43  L.  son.  93  Ky.  374,  20  S.  W.  279. 

Ed.  191;  Knights  Templars  &  Ma-  "Eichholtz   v.    Martin,  53  Kan. 

sons  Life  Indem.  Co.  v.  Jarman,  187  486, 30  Pac.  1064;  Williams  v.  Nash- 

i  :  Rep.  108;  line  v.  ville,  89  Tenn.  487,  15  S.  W.  364. 

n,  90  Tex.  279,  72  S.  W.  157.  "People  v.  Carlock,  198  111.  150, 

ite   v.   Smith,  35  Neb.  13,  52  65  N.  E.  109;  Parker  v.  Powell.  132 

N.  W.  700;  State   v.  Atlantic  City,  Ind.   419,  31   N.   E.    1114;   State   v. 

50  X.  J.  L.  232,  28  Atl.  127.  Bershoff.  158  Ind.  349,  63  N.  E.  717; 

11  Atlantic  Water  Works  Co.  v.  Commonwealth  v.  Moir,  199  Pa.  St. 

imers  Water  Co.,  44  N.  J.  Eq.  534,   543,   49   Atl.  351,  85   Am.  St. 

5AtL581.  Rep.  801. 

" Rogers- Ruger   Co.    v.    Murray,  l9 People   v.   Glenn   County,   100 

115  Wia  267,91  N.  W.  057.  Cat   419,  35  Pac.  302,  38  Am.  St. 

'•Smith  v.  Crutcher,  92  Ky.  586,  Rep.  305,  "Nor  can  the  courts  annul 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


137 


just,  unreasonable  or  immoral,  or  because  opposed  to  pub- 
lic policy,  or  the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  Unless  a  statute 
violates  some  express  provision  of  the  constitution,  it  must 
be  held  to  be  valid.  These  principles  are  supported  by 
numerous  authorities,  some  of  which  are  referred  to  in  the 
margin.20 

"An  act  cannot  be  annulled  because,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  it  violates  the  best  public  policy,  or  does  violence  to 
some  natural  equity,  or  interferes  with  the  inherent  rights 
of  freemen,  nor  upon  the  idea  that  it  is  opposed  to  some 

50  Ohio  St.  378,  34  N.  E.  536;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Moir,  199  Pa.  St.  534, 
49  Atl.  351,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  801; 
Crafts  v.  Ray,  22  R.  I.  179.  46  Atl. 
1043,  49  L.  R.  A.  604;  State  v. 
Becker,  3  S.  D.  29,  51  N.  W.  1018; 
Stratton  Claimants  v.  Morris  Claim- 
ants, 89  Tenn.  497,  15  S.  W.  446: 
Hurley  v.  State,  98  Tenn.  665,  41  S. 
W.  352;  McCully  v.  State,  102  Tenn. 
509,  53  S.  W.  134,  46  L.  R.  A.  507; 
Leeper  v.  State,  103  Tenn.  500,  53  S. 
W.  962,  48  L.  R.  A.  167;  Dayton 
Coal  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Barton,  103  Tenn. 
604.  53  S.  W.  970;  State  v.  Lindsay, 
103  Tenn.  625,  53  S.  W.  950;  Lytle 
v.  Haff,  75  Tex.  128,  12  S.  W.  610; 
Harris  County  v.  Stewart,  91  Tex. 
133,  41  S.  W.  650;  Kimball  v.  Grants- 
ville  City,  19  Utah,  368.  57  Pac.  1; 
Prison  Ass'n  v.  Ash  by,  93  Va.  667, 
25  S.  E.  893;  State  v.  Cunningham, 
81  Wis.  440,  51  N.  W.  724,  15  L.  R. 
A.  501;  Cope  v.  Cope,  137  U.  S.  682, 
11  S.  C.  Rep.  222.  34  L.  Ed.  832;  Vie- 
meister  v.  White,  88  App.  Div.  44; 
Ex  parte  Wilbarger,  41  Tex.  Crim. 
Rep.  514,  55  S.  W.  968;  State  v. 
Sbarpless,  31  Wash.  191,  71  Pac.  737; 
Julien  v.  Model  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  116 
Wis.  79,  92  N.  W.  501;  Dewey  v. 
United  States,  178  U.  S.  510,  20  S. 
C.  Rep.  981,  44  L.  Ed.  1170. 


a  statute  because  the  legislature 
passing  it  was  imposed  upon  and 
misled  by  a  few  of  its  members  in 
conjunction  with  interested  third 
parties.  .  .  .  The  courts  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  policy  of 
legislation  nor  the  motives  with 
which  it  ie  made."  Williams  v. 
Nashville,  89  Tenn.  487,  15  S.  W. 
364. 

20  Territory  v.  Connell,  2  Ariz., 
339, 16  Pac.  209 ;  Carson  v.  St.  Francis 
Levee  Disk,  59  Ark.  513,  27  S.  W. 
590;  Hellman  v.  Shoulters,  114  Cal. 
136,  45  Pac.  1008;  Praigg  v.  West- 
ern Paving  &  Supply  Co.,  143  Ind. 
358,  42  N.  E.  750;  State  v.  Gerhardt, 
145  Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  409;  Purnell 
v.  Mann,  105  Ky.  87,  48  S.  W.  407; 
Burrows  v.  Delta  Trans.  Co.,  106 
Mich.  582,  64  N.  W.  501,  29  L.  R.  A. 
468;  State  v.  Corbett,  57  Minn.  345, 
59  N.  W.  317,  24  L.  R.  A.  498;  State 
v.  Mrozinski,  59  Minn.  465,  61  N.  W. 
560,  27  L.  R.  A.  76;  State  v.  Board 
of  Control,  85  Minn.  165,  88  N.  W. 
533;  State  v.  Heldenbrand,  62  Neb. 
136,  87  N.  W.  25,  89  Am.  St,  Rep. 
743;  Sawyer  v.  Dooley,  21  New  390, 
3J  Pac.  437;  Tribune  Printing  &  B. 
Co.  v.  Barnes,  7  N.  D.  591,  75  N.  W. 
904;  Henderson  v.  Dowd,  116  N.  C. 
795,21  S.  E.  692;  Probasco  v.  Raine, 


vai  ii>i  i  v    01    BTATUTBS    in    GENEBAL. 

spirit  of  the  constitution  not  expressed  in  its  words,  nor  be- 
il  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  a  free  people,  and  hence 
the  wisdom,  policy  and  desirability  of  suoh  acts  are  mutters 
addressed  to  the  general  assembly,  and  must  rest  upon  the 
intelligence,  patriotism  and  wisdom  of  that  body,  and  not 
upon  the  judgment  of  the  court."21  The  supreme  court  of 
I  >hio,  speaking  on  the  same  subject,  says:  "Whatever  may 
be  the  rule  elsewhere,  it  is  clear  that  in  this  state  the  valid- 
ity of  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  must  be  tested  alone 
by  the  constitution,  and  the  courts  have  no  right  or  power 
to  nullify  a  statute  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  against  nat- 
ural justice  or  public  policy.  When  the  legislature  is  silent, 
the  courts  may  declare  the  public  policy,  and  mark  out  the 
of  natural  justice;  but  when  the  legislature  has  spoken, 
within  the  powers  conferred  by  the  constitution,  its  duly 
enacted  statutes  form  the  public  policy,  and  prescribe  the 
rights  of  the  people,  and  such  statutes  must  be  enforced  and 
not  nullified  by  the  judicial  and  executive  departments  of 
the  state.  When  the  legislature,  within  the  powers  con- 
ferred by  the  constitution,  has  declared  the  public  policy 
and  tixed  the  rights  of  the  people  by  statute,  the  courts  can- 
not declare  a  different  policy  or  fix  different  rights.  In  this 
regard  the  legislature  is  supreme,  and  the  presumption  is 
that  it  will  do  no  wrong  and  will  pass  no  unjust  laws.  The 
remedy,  if  any  is  needed,  is  with  the  people  and  not  with 
the  courts."  " 

M'Cullyv.  State,  102  Tenn.  509,  because   it  is  opposed  to  a  spirit 

531,  53  S.  W.  184,  10  L.  R.  A.  507.  supposed  to  pervade  the  constitu- 

■  -bascov.  Raine,  50  Ohio  St.  tion,  but  not  expressed  in   words, 

11,34  N.  E.  536.     And  so  or   because   it    is   thought    to    be 

the  supreme  court  of   Mini  e  ota:  unjust  or  oppressive,  or  to  violate 

"Furthermore,  courts  are  not  at  some    natural,  social    or  political 

liberty  to  declare  a  statute  uncon-  rights  of  the  citizen,  unless  it  can 

tional  because,  in  their  opin-  be  shown   that  such   injusl 

j,,M.  i{                   I  to  the  fundaraen-  prohibited  or  such  rights  are  pro- 

tal  principles  of  republican  govern-  tected  by  the  constitution. 

principles  are  "Except  where  the  constitution 

I  beyond  legislative  encroach-  has  imposed  limitations  upon  the 

by    the    constitution;     or  legislative  power,  it  must  be  con- 


VALIDITY    OF   STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


139- 


In  State  v.  Moores  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  Nebraska, 
providing  for  a  board  of  fire  and  police  commissioners  for 
the  city  of  Omaha,  to  consist  of  the  governor  and  four  elect- 
ors of  the  city  appointed  by  the  governor,  was  held  invalid 
as  violating  an  implied  constitutional  right  of  local  self- 
government.23     This  case  was  subsequently  overruled,  and 


sidered  as  practically  absolute;  and 
to  warrant  the  judiciary  in  declar- 
ing a  statute  invalid  they  must  be 
able  to  point  out  some  constitu- 
tional limitation  which  the  act 
clearly  transcends."  State  v.  Cor- 
bett,  57  Minn.  845,  59  N.  W.  317,  24 
L.  R.  A.  498.  Similar  language  will 
be  found  in  State  v.  Gerhardt,  145 
Ind.  439, 44  N.  E.  469,  and  Common- 
wealth v.  Moir,  199  Pa.  St.  534,  49 
Atl.  351.  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  801. 

23  55  Neb.  480,  76  N.  W.  175.  The 
court  says:  "The  validity  of  the 
law  is  assailed  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  violative  of  the  inherent  right 
of  local  self-goveiTiment,  by  de- 
priving the  people  of  cities  of  the 
metropolitan  class  from  choosing 
their  own  officers.  There  is  no  ex- 
press provision  in  the  constitution 
of  this  state  which  gives  munici- 
pal corporations  the  power  to  se- 
lect their  officers  or  to  manage 
their  own  affairs,  nor  is  there  any 
clause  to  be  found  in  that  instru- 
ment which  in  express  terms  in- 
hibits the  legislature  from  confer- 
ring upon  the  governor  the  power 
to  appoint  municipal  officers  to 
manage  and  control  purely  local 
affairs.  If  this  act  is  invalid  on 
the  ground  that  the  appointing 
power  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  governor,  it  is  because  the  law 
is  repugnant  to  some  right  retained 
by  the  people  at  the  time  of  the 


adoption  of  the  organic  law.  It  is 
true  the  state  constitution  is  not  a 
grant  of  legislative  power,  and  the 
law-making  power  may  legislate 
upon  any  subject  not  inhibited  by 
the  fundamental  law,  as  has  been 
held  in  Magueau  v.  City  of  Fre- 
mont, 30  Neb.  843,  and  numerous 
other  decisions  of  this  court.  But 
it  by  no  means  follows  from  this 
that  the  legislature  is  free  to  pass 
laws  upon  any  subject  unless  in 
express  terms  prohibited  by  the 
constitution.  The  inhibition  on 
the  power  of  the  legislature  may 
be  by  implication  as  well  as  by  ex- 
pression. Laws  may  be,  and  have 
been,  declared  invalid  although  not 
repugnant  to  any  express  restric- 
tion contained  in  the  fundamental 
law.  ...  It  cannot  be  success- 
fully asserted  that  the  only  rights 
reserved  to  the  people  are  those 
enumerated  in  said  article  of  the 
constitution  (the  bill  of  rights), 
since  section  26  thereof  provides: 
'This  enumeration  of  rights  shall 
not  be  construed  to  impair  and 
deny  others  retained  by  the  people, 
and  all  powers  not  herein  dele- 
gated remain  with  the  people.' 
This  language  removes  all  doubt 
that  powers  other  than  those  speci- 
fied in  the  bill  of  rights  were  re- 
tained by  the  people,  and  any  stat- 
ute enacted  in  violation  of  such 
rights    is     as    clearly    invalid    as- 


1 1'» 


YAiUMiY    «M     BTATUTES    in    GENERAL. 


the  law  in  question  held  valid;-'  and  it  lias  been  said  that 
the  decision  overruled  was  without  support  in  the  books.'-5 
5,  When  statutes  void  for  uncertainty. —  It  is  in- 
evitable that  some  Btatutes  should  come  from  the  hands  of 
the  legislature  with  imperfections  of  various  sorts.  These 
imperfections  may  relate  to  minor  matters,  such  as  grammar, 
punctuation  or  rhetoric,  or  they  may  relate  to  substantial 
matters  in  the  form  of  omissions,  ambiguities  and  contradic- 
It  is  undoubtedly  the  duty  of  a  court  to  so  construe 
a  statute  as  to  give  it  a  sensible  effect  and  make  it  of  bind- 
ing force.28  "A  statute  cannot  be  held  void  for  uncertainty, 
if  any  reasonable  and  practical  construction  can  be  given  to 
its  language.  Mere  difficulty  in  ascertaining  its  meaning 
or  the  fact  that  it  is  susceptible  of  different  interpretations 
will  not  render  it  nugatory.  Doubts  as  to  its  proper  con- 
struction will  not  justify  us  in  disregarding  it.  It  is  the 
boundrn  duty  of  courts  to  endeavor  by  every  rule  of  con- 
struction to  ascertain  the  meaning  of,  and  to  give  full  force 
and  effect  to,  every  enactment  of  the  general  assembly  not 


though  the  same  had  been  ex- 
ly  forbidden  by  the  funda- 
mental law." 

"The  ri.-ht  of  local  self  govern- 
ment is  not  forbidden  by  the  con- 
stitution, while  the  principle  is 
fully  recognized  in  that  instru- 
ment, and  its  framers  must  have 
contemplated  that  the  right  then 
og  of  municipal  corporations 
to  choose  their  local  officers  to  ad- 
minister their  local  affairs  should 
continue  as  in  the  past.  This  right 
still  exists,  and  the  legislature  is 
to  abridge  the  same  or 
take  it  away." 

The   following    cases    also   lend 

some  support   to  the  same  view: 

I'.ritton  v.  Board  of  Election  Com- 

59   CaL   337,   61   Pac. 


1115,  51  L.  R  A.  115;  Attorney- 
General  v.  Detroit,  78  Mich.  545,  44 
N.  W.  388,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  458. 

u  Redell  v.  Moores,  63  Neb.  219, 
88  N.  W.  243.  A  similar  law  was 
attacked  on  the  same  grounds  and 
held  valid  in  Americus  v.  Perry, 
114  Ga.  871,  40  S.  E.  1004. 

25  Newport  v.  Horton  (R.  I.),  50 
L.  R.  A.  330. 

2«  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  State,  142 
Ind.  4C8,  41  N.  E.  937;  St.  Louis 
Dalles  Imp.  Co.  v.  Nelson  Lumber 
Co.,  4:j  Minn.  130,  44  N.  W.  1080; 
Warren  County  v.  Nail,  78  Miss. 
726,  29  So.  755;  Hilburnv.  St.  Paul, 
etc.  Ry.  Co.,  23  Mont.  229,  58  Pac 
515,  811;  Lloyd  v.  Dollison,  13  Ohio 
C.  D.  071. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


141 


obnoxious  to  constitutional  prohibitions."27  But  if,  after 
exhausting-  every  rule  of  construction,  no  sensible  meaning 
can  be  given  to  the  statute,  or  if  it  is  so  incomplete  that  it 
cannot  be  carried  into  effect,  it  must  be  pronounced  inoper- 
ative and  void.28  A  statute  which  prohibited  the  hauling  of 
more  than  two  thousand  pounds  on  a  narrow-tired  wagon, 
or  more  than  twenty-five  hundred  pounds  on  a  broad-tired 
wagon,  was  held  void  for  uncertainty,  because  it  fixed  no- 
standard  for  determining  what  was  a  broad,  or  what  a  nar- 
row, tire.29  So  of  a  statute  authorizing  the  state  board  of 
health  to  revoke  a  ph3Tsician's  certificate  for  "grossly  unpro- 
fessional conduct  of  a  character  likely  to  deceive  or  defraud 


27  State  v.  West  Side  St.  Ry.  Co., 
146  Mo.  155,  47  S.  W.  959. 

28  State  v.  Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375, 
55  S.  W.  627,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  776; 
State  v.  West  Side  St.  Ry.  Co.,  146 
Mo.  155,  47  S.  W.  959.  In  the  latter 
case  the  court  says:  "An  act  of 
the  legislature,  to  be  en  forcible  as 
a  law,  must  prescribe  a  rule  of  ac- 
tion, and  such  rule  must  be  intelli- 
gibly expressed.  .  .  .  It  is  mani- 
fest that  an  act  of  the  legislative 
department  cannot  be  enforced, 
when  its  meaning  cannot  be  de- 
termined by  any  known  rules  of 
construction.  The  courts  cannot 
venture  upon  the  dangerous  path 
of  judicial  legislation  to  supply 
omissions,  or,  remedy  defects  in 
matters  committed  toa  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  government.  It  is 
far  better  to  wait  for  necessary 
corrections  by  those  authorized  to 
make  them,  or,  in  fact,  for  them  to 
remain  unmade,  however  desirable 
they  may  be,  than  for  judicial  tri- 
bunals to  transcend  the  just  limits 
of  their  constitutional  powers." 
p.  169. 

Statutes  were  held  void  for  un- 


certainty in  the  following  cases: 
In  re  House  Resolution,  12  Colo. 
359,  21  Pac.  485;  People  v.  Taylor, 
96  Mich.  576,  56  N.  W.  27,  21  L.  R. 
A.  287;  State  v.  Rumberg,  86  Minn. 
399,  90  N.  W.  1055,  1133;  State  v. 
West  Side  St.  Ry.  Co.,  146  Mo.  155, 
47  S.  W.  959;  State  v.  Brinkman,  7 
Ohio  C.  C.  165;  Commonwealth  v. 
Junker,  7  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  125. 

In  the  following  cases  acts 
claimed  to  be  void  for  uncertainty 
were  sustained:  Pennsylvania  Co. 
v.  State,  142  Ind.  428,  41  N.  E.  937; 
Stow  v.  Grand  Rapids,  79  Mich. 
595,  44  N.  W.  1047;  McPherson  v. 
Blocker,  92  Mich.  377,  52  N.  W.  469, 
31  Am.  St.  Rep.  587,  16  L.  R.  A.  475; 
Fisher  v.  Wineman,  125  Mich.  642,. 
84  N.  W.  1111;  St.  Louis  Dalles 
Imp.  Co.  v.  Nelson  Lumber  Co.,  43 
Minn.  130.  44  N.  W.  1080:  Davis  v. 
State,  51  Neb.  301,  70  N.  W.  984; 
State  v.  Aitken,  62  Neb.  428,  87 
N.  W.  153;  Huyser  v.  Common- 
wealth, 25  Ky.  L.  R.  608.  And  see 
Cowan  v.  East  Tenn.  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 
2  Tenn.  Cas.  102. 

29  Cook  v.  State,  26  Ind.  App.  278r 
59  N.  E.  489. 


142  VALIDITY    OF   STATUTES   IN    GENERAL. 

the  public,"10  and  one  punishing  the  laroeny  of  a  dog  as  in 
other  oases  of  laroeny,  without  saying  whether  it  should  be 
as  in  grand  larceny  or  in  petit  larceny.'1  A  statute  that  if 
any  officer  charged  with  the  collection,  receipt  or  safe-keep- 
ing of  public  money  belonging  to  the  state  or  to  any  county, 
etc,  shall  convert  to  his  own  use,  every  such  act  should  be 
deemed  an  embezzlement,  etc.,  was  held  void  and  ineffectual, 
because  it  did  not  specify  what  must  be  converted  to  con- 
tinue the  crime.38  An  act  authorizing  school  districts  by 
popular  vote  to  levy  a  special  tax  for  certain  purposes  was 
held  void  because  no  way  was  prescribed  by  which  it  could 
be  <  arried  into  effect.33  An  act  of  Kansas  created  a  county 
court  in  Douglas  county,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a 
judge  by  the  governor  within  twenty  days  from  its  passage, 
took  away  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  in  the 
city  of  Lawrence,  except  in  civil  suits  where  the  amount  in- 
volved did  not  exceed  one  dollar  exclusive  of  interest  and 
costs,  repealed  all  inconsistent  acts,  and  by  one  provision 
was  to  go  into  effect  after  its  passage  and  publication.  By 
section  8  of  the  act  it  was  provided  that  the  question  of  es- 
tablishing such  court  should  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of 
the  county  by  the  county  commissioners  at  the  next  general 
election,  and  if  the  vote  was  favorable  then  the  governor 
should  appoint  the  judge.  The  act  was  held  inoperative 
and  void  "because  of  the  absolute  contradiction  between  its 
principal  provisions."34  A  statute  that  "if  any  railroad 
corporation  shall  charge,  collect  or  receive  more  than  a  just 

tthews  v.  Murphy,  23  Ky.  L.  moaning;  or,if  the  means  for  carry- 
Rep.  750,  63  S.  W.  785.  ing  out  its  provisions  are  not  ade- 
:"  Johnston  v.  State,  100  Ala.  32,  quate  or  effective;  or  if  it  is  so  con- 

flicting    and    inconsistent    in    its 

ite  v.  Taylor,  7  8.  D.  533,  G4  provisions  that  it  cannot  be  exe- 

N.  W  cuted,  it  is  incumbent  on  the  courts 

•Ililburn   v.   St.   Paul,  etc.   Ry.  to  declare  it  void  and  inoperative." 

>3  Mont.  229,  58  Pac.  515,  811.  p.  241. 
The  c                     "So,  if  an  act  of        34  In  re  Hendricks,  60  Kan.  796, 

the  legislature  is  so  vague  and  un-  57  Pac.  965. 
certain  in  its  terms  as  to  convey  no 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


143 


or  reasonable  rate  of  toll  or  compensation  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  passengers  or  freight,"  it  should  be  deemed  guilty 
of  extortion,  was  held  void  for  uncertainty  in  Kentucky,  for 
lack  of  prescribing  any  standard  by  which  to  determine 
what  was  just  and  reasonable;35  but  a  similar  statute  was 
upheld  in  Iowa.36 

.  An  act  to  punish  those  guilty  of  disturbing  religious  wor- 
ship and  an  act  prohibiting  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
with  a  proviso  that  it  should  not  affect  the  right  of  manu- 
facturers to  sell  in  wholesale  quantities,  were  held  not  invalid 
by  reason  of  any  indefiniteness  in  the  words  italicised.37  An 
act  fixing  a  minimum  penalty  of  both  fine  and  imprison- 
ment was  held  not  bad  for  uncertainty  because  it  fixed  no 
maximum,  and  it  was  held  that  it  could  at  least  be  enforced 


35  Louisville  &  Nashville  R  R 
Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  99  Ky.  132, 
35  S.  W.  129,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  457, 
33  L.  R  A.  209.  The  court  says: 
"That  this  statute  leaves  uncer- 
tain what  shall  be  deemed  'a  just 
and  reasonable  rate  of  toll  or  com- 
pensation '  cannot  be  denied,  and 
that  different  juries  might  reach 
different  conclusions  on  the  same 
testimony,  as  to  whether  or  not  an 
offense  has  been  committed,  must 
also  be  conceded.  The  criminality 
of  the  carrier's  act,  therefore,  de- 
pends upon  the  jury's  view  of  the 
reasonableness  of  the  rate  charged; 
.and  this  latter  depends  on  many 
uncertain  and  complicated  ele- 
ments. .  .  .  There  is  no  stand- 
ard whatever  fixed  by  the  statute, 
or  attempted  to  be  fixed,  by  which 
the  carrier  may  regulate  its  con- 
duct; and  it  seems  clear  to  us  to 
be  utterly  repugnant  to  our  sys- 
tem of  laws  to  punish  a  person  for 
an  act,  the  criminality  of  which 
depends    not    on     any    standard 


erected  by  the  law  which  may  be 
known  in  advance,  but  on  one 
erected  by  a  jury.  And  especially 
so  as  that  standard  must  be  as 
variable  and  uncertain  as  the  views 
of  different  juries  may  suggest, 
and  as  to  which  nothing  can  be 
known  until  after  the  commission 
of  the  crime."    pp.  136,  137. 

There  was  the  same  ruling  in 
the  same  state  upon  a  statute  mak- 
ing it  penal  "for  any  corporation 
to  make  or  give  any  undue  or  un- 
reasonable preference  or  advan- 
tage to  any  particular  person  or 
locality  or  any  particular  descrip- 
tion of  traffic"  in  the  matter  of 
transportation.  Commonwealth  v. 
Louisville  &  N.  R  R  Co.,  20  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  491,  46  S.  W.  700. 

36  Burlington,  C.  R  &  N.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Dey,  82  Iowa,  312,  48  N.  W.  98, 
31  Am.  St.  Rep.  477, 12  L.  R.  A  436. 

37  State  v.  Stirth,  11  Wash.  423, 
39  Pac.  665;  Lloyd  v.  Dollison,  13 
Ohio  C.  D.  571. 


Ill  VALIDITY   OF  STATUTES   IN    GENEBAL. 

to  the  extent  of  the  minimum.88  A  statute  giving  plaintiff's 
attorneys  a  lien  on  the  plaintiff's  right  of  acl  ion  was  held  not 
t->  be  void  because  no  provision  w;is  made  for  enforcing  the 
',;  n.  and  it  was  held  the  lien  would  be  enforced  under  the 
general  law  relating  to  liens.89  An  acl  granted  to  a  county  the 
swamp  lands  in  the  county  in  consideration  of  the  construc- 
tion and  maintenance  of  levees  along  tin-'  Mississippi  river  in 

■  iunty3  and  authorized  the  police  jury  of  the  county  tosell 

;;nd  d  of  the  land  and   make   title   thereto,  provided 

that  the  count}7  should  not  have  or  sell  more  than  fifty 

ad  acres  under  the  provisions  of  the  act.    There  were 

■six  thousand  aires  of  swamp  lands  in  the  county,  and 
it  was  claimed  that  the  act  was  void  for  uncertainty  because 
the  part  granted  was  not  defined.  Hut  the  court  construed 
it  as  a  grant  of  fifty  thousand  aeres  to  be  selected  by  the 
police  jury  and  sustained  the  act.10  A  Missouri  statute  re- 
electric  car  to  be  provided  during  specific  d 
months  at  the  front  end  with  a  screen  for  the  protection  of 
lotorman  and  imposed  a  penalty  for  non-compliance. 

statute  did  not  say  who  should  provide  the  screen,  but 
the  court  held  it  to  be  implied  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
owner  to  do  so.41     An   amendatory  act  provided  that  "any 

u  who  shall  unlawfully  and  carnally  know  and  abuse 
any  female  child  under  the  age  of  fourteen  years  shall  be 

jhed  by  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison  during  his 

pal  life."     The  court  held  that  when  considered  in  con- 

ion  with  the  statutes  as  to  fornication,  adultery,  seduc- 
tion, rape  and  incest,  the  intent  of  the  legislature  was  so 
uncertain  that  the  act  was  void.42 

In  one  case  the  two  houses  were  at  loggerheads  over  the 
appropriation  bill  for  the  forty-second  and  forty-third  fiscal 

kler,  '.it  Wis.  418,  64  41  State  v.  Whitaker,  1G0  Mo.  59, 

N.  W.  60  S.  W.  1068. 

39  Illinois   Central   R   It.    Co.    v.  «  State  v.  Wentler,  76  Wia  89, 

Wells,  104  T.;nn.  706,  59  S.  YV.  1041.  44  N.  W.  841. 
«"  Warren  County  v.  Noll,  78  Miss. 
J9  8o.755. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  145 

years.  The  pending  bill  consisted  mainly  of  two  sections, 
section  1  making  the  appropriations  for  the  forty-second 
year  and  section  2  making  the  appropriations  for  the  forty- 
third  year.  A  conference  committee  was  appointed  on  the 
last  day  of  the  session  and  it  agreed  upon  a  report  and  re- 
wrote section  1  of  the  bill,  but  did  not  have  time,  within 
the  limit  of  the  session,  to  rewrite  section  2.  Accordingly 
between  section  1  as  rewritten  and  old  section  2  they  in- 
serted the  following:  "The  amendments  in  section  2  coin- 
cide with  those  of  preceding  section  throughout,  and  amend- 
ments and  notes  to  be  changed  to  the  same."  In  this  condition 
the  bill  was  passed  and  the  court  sustained  it,  holding  that 
that  was  certain  which  could  be  made  certain,  and  that  by 
means  of  section  1  and  the  above  memorandum  section  2 
could  be  read  as  intended  by  the  legislature.43 

§  87  (67).  The  legislative  power  cannot  be  delegated. — 
The  power  to  make  laws  for  a  state  vested  in  the  legisla- 
ture is  a  sovereign  power,  requiring  the  exercise  of  judg- 
ment and  discretion.  It  is  a  delegated  power., —  delegated 
in  a  constitution  by  the  people  in  whom  inherently  are  all 
the  powers.  On  common-law  principles,  as  well  as  by  set- 
tled constitutional  law,  it  is  a  power  which  cannot  be  dele- 
gated.44 

«  Territory  v.  Prince,  6  N.  M.  635,  Y.  483;  People  v.  Stout,  23  Barb. 

30  Pac.  934.  349;   Thome  v.  Cramer,  15  Barb. 

<4  Carlisle  v.  Carlisle's  Adm'r,  2  112;  Bradley  v.  Baxter,  id.  122;  State 
Harr.  318;  Berger  v.  Duff,  4  John.  v.  Wilcox,  45  Mo.  458;  Santo  v. 
Ch.  368;  Hunt  v.  Burrel,  5  John.  137;  State,  2  Iowa,  165;  Ex  parte  Wall, 
Farnsworth  v.  Lisbon,  62  Me.  451;  48  Cal.  279,  17  Am.  Rep.  425;  Gee- 
Brewer  v.  Brewer,  id.  62;  State  v.  brick  v.  State,  5  Iowa,  491;  State  v. 
Hudson  County,  37  N.  J.  L.  12;  State  Beneke,  9  id.  203;  State  v.  Weir,  33 
v.  Copeland,  3  R.  I.  33;  Willis  v.  id.  134,  11  Am.  Rep.  115;  Com- 
Owen,  43  Tex.  41;  People  v.  Col-  monwealth  v.  McWilliams,  11  Pa. 
lins,  3  Mich.  343;  Rice  v.  Foster,  4  St.  61:  Maize  v.  State,  4  Ind.  342; 
Harr.  479;  State  v.  Parker,  26  Vt.  Meshmeier  v.  State,  11  id.  482;  Cin- 
362;  Lockes'  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  491;  cinnati,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commis- 
Parker  v.  Commonwealth,  6  id.  507,  sioners,  1  Ohio  St.  77;  Cooley's  Con. 
47  Am.  Dec.  480;  State  v.  Swisher,  Lira.  142;  Slinger  v.  Henneman,  38 
17  Tex.  441;  Barto  v.  Himrod,  8  N.  Wis.  504;  Wayman  v.  Southard,  10 
10 


L46  tDITl    OF    BTATUTE8    IH    GENERAL. 

This  is  a  general  rule  or  maxim;  but  like  all  other  pules 

of  the  common  law  it  is  flexible,  extending  as  far  as  the 

m  and  principles  on  which  it  is  founded  go,  and  oeasing 

when  the  reason  ceases.  It  admits  of  exceptions  connected 
with  the  principle  which  supports  the  rule,  or  which  may 
be  presumed  to  have  beeu  intended  by  the  party  or  people 
who  are  the  original  source  of  the  power. 

§  88  (68).  The  legislative  department  as  an  integral  part 
of  our  political  system  is  confined  to  the  exercise  of  its 
proper  powers,  and  possesses  them  exclusively,  as  the  other 
departments  severally  have  theirs.  As  the  possessor  of  the 
law-making  power,  it  may  confer  authority  and  impose 
duties  upon  the  others  and  regulate  the  exercise  of  their 
al  functions.  It  may  pass  general  laws  for  that  pur- 
pose, giving  them  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication  an 
incidental  discretion  to  employ  the  proper  means  to  till  up 
and  regulate  the  details  for  themselves  and  subordinates, 
though  the  exercise  of  that  discretion  be  quasi  legislative. 
This  is  illustrated  by  laws  empowering  the  courts  in  the 
exercise  of  their  jurisdiction  to  adopt  rules  of  practice  and 
forms  of  procedure;45  and  by  the  powers  granted  to  the 
president  in  such  cases   as  that  disclosed  in  Houston   v. 

Wheat.  1,  42,  6  L.  Ed.  253;  Alcorn  first  instance  in  an  act  of  parlia- 

v.  Hamer,  38  Mis«.  652;  Senate  of  merit." 

Happy  Homes  Club  v.  Supervisors,  45  Wayman  v.Southard, 10  Wheat. 

99  Mich.  117,  57  N.  W.  1101.  23  L.  R.  1,  G  L.  Ed.  253;    Bank  of  United 

A. 144:  Doherty  v.  Ransome  County,  States  v.  Halstead,  10  Wheat.  51,  6  L. 

5  N.  D.  1,  63  N.  W.  148.     And  see  Ed.  264;  Coleman  v.  Newby,  7  Kan. 

cited  in  following  sections.  88;  Anderson  v.  Levely,  5S  Md.  192; 

In    an    English    case,    National  Thompson  v.  Floyd,  2  Jones' L.  313; 

Telephone    Co.    v.    Baker,  (1893)  2  Ross  v.  Duval,  13Pet.  45, 10  L.Ed.  51. 

Ch.    186,   203,   it    is    said:     "It    is  In  Wayman  v.  Soutliard,  supra, 

within    the    competence    of    the  Marshall,  C.  J.,  said:  "It  will  not  be 

ature    to    delegate    its    au-  contended  that  congress  can  dele- 

thority;  and,  when  once  that  dele-  gate  to  the  courts,  or  to  any  other 

authority  has  been  properly  tribunal,  powers  which  are  strictly 

exercised  by  the  agent  to  whom  it  and   exclusively    legislative.     But 

is  intrusted,  the  sanction  is  that  of  congress  may  certainly  delegate  to 

the  legislature  itself,  ju.st  as  much  others  powers  which  the  legislature 

as  if  it  had  been  expressed  in  the  may     rightfully     exercise     itself. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


14' 


Moore.46  An  act  of  congress  authorized  the  president  in 
certain  exigencies  to  call  forth  such  number  of  the  militia 
of  the  states  most  convenient  to  the  scene  of  action  as  he 
might  judge  necessary,  and  to  issue  his  orders  for  that  pur- 


"Without  going  further  for  exam- 
ples, we  will  take  that  the  legality 
of  which  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendants admit.  The  seventeenth 
section  of  the  judiciary  act,  and 
the  seventh  section  of  the  addi- 
tional act,  empower  the  courts  re- 
spectively to  regulate  their  prac- 
tice. It  certainly  will  not  be  con- 
tended that  this  might  not  be  done 
by  congress.  The  courts,  for  exam- 
ple, may  make  rules  directing  the 
returning  of  writs  and  processes, 
the  filing  of  declarations  and  other 
pleadings,  and  other  things  of  the 
same  description.  It  will  not  be 
contended  that  these  things  might 
not  be  done  by  the  legislature  with- 
out the  intervention  of  the  courts; 
yet  it  is  not  alleged  that  the  power 
may  not  be  conferred  on  the  judi- 
cial department. 

"The  line  has  not  been  exactly 
drawn  which  separates  those  im- 
portant subjects  which  must  be  en- 
tirely regulated  by  the  legislature 
itself,  from  those  of  less  interest, 
in  which  a  general  provision  may 
be  made,  and  a  general  power  given 
to  those  who  are  to  act  under  such 
general  provisions  to  fill  up  the  de- 
tails. The  seventeenth  section  of 
the  judiciary  act  of  1787,  ch.  20,  en- 
acted '  That  all  the  said  courts  shall 
have  power  to  make  and  establish 
all  necessary  rules  for  the  orderly 
conducting  business  in  the  said 
courts,  provided  such  rules  are  not 


repugnant  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States; '  and  the  seventh  section  of 
the  act,  referred  to  as  the  addi- 
tional act  (act  1793,  ch.  22,  §7),  de- 
tails more  at  large  the  powers  con- 
ferred by  the  seventeenth  section 
of  the  judiciary  act.  These  sections 
were  held  to  give  the  court  full  ju- 
risdiction over  all  matters  of  prac- 
tice." The  question  in  this  case 
related  to  execution. 

"A  general  superintendence," 
say  the  court,  "  over  this  subject 
seems  to  be  properly  within  the  ju- 
dicial province,  and  has  always 
been  so  considered.  It  is,  un- 
doubtedly, proper  for  the  legisla- 
ture to  prescribe  the  manner  in 
which  these  ministerial  offices 
shall  be  performed,  and  this  duty 
will  never  be  devolved  on  any 
other  department  without  urgent 
reasons.  But  in  the  mode  of  obey- 
ing the  mandate  of  a  writ  issuing 
from  a  court,  so  much  of  that  which 
may  be  done  by  the  judiciary, 
under  the  authority  of  the  legisla- 
ture, seems  to  be  blended  with  that 
for  which  the  legislature  must  ex- 
pressly and  directly  provide,  that 
there  is  some  difficulty  in  discern- 
ing the  exact  limits  within  which 
the  legislature  may  avail  itself  of 
the  agency  of  its  courts.  The  dif- 
ference between  the  departments 
undoubtedly  is,  that  the  legislature 
makes,  the  executive  executes,  and 
the  judiciary  construes  the  law; 


«  5  Wheat.  1,  5  L.  Ed.  19. 


1  18 


VALIDITY    OF   STATUTES    IN    GENERAL, 


pose  to  suoh  officers  of  the  militia  as  he  should  think  proper.41 
It  prescribed  a  punishment  for  failing  to  obey  the  orders 

of  the  president  as  an  offense  against  the  laws  of  the  United 
States.48  Another  conspicuous  example  of  such  discretion 
confided  to  the  president  was  the  act  of  congress  in  L863 
empowering  him  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.® 

The  true  distinction  is  between  the  delegation  of  power 

to  ni  ike  the  law,  which  involves  a  discretion  as  to  what  the 

law  shall  be,  and  conferring  an  authority  or  discretion  as 

-  execution,  to  be  exercised  under  and  in  pursuance  of 

aw.     The  first  cannot  be  done;  to  the  latter  no  valid 

Ction  can  be  made.60 

g  89  (69).  What  is  a  delegation  of  legislative  power  — 
Authority  to  make  rules  and  regulations.— The  constitu- 
tion vests  this  power  in  the  legislature;  it  must  there  re- 
main by  force  of  the  constitution.  It  is  exclusively  vested 
in  the  legislature.     The  legislature  cannot  divest  itself  of 


but  the  makerof  the  law  may  com- 
mit something  to  the  discretion  of 
the  other  departments,  and  the 
precise  boundary  of  this  power  is 
a  subject  of  delicate  and  difficult 
inquiry,  into  which  a  court  will 
not  enter  unnecessarily." 

In  Coleman  v.  Newby,  7  Kan.  88, 
Valentine,  J.,  said:  "  If  the  legisla- 
ture says  that  the  district  courts 
shall,  in  certain  cases,  be  clothed 
with  certain  discretionary  power, 
where  does  the  supreme  court  get 
authority  to  say  that  the  district 
court  shall  not  be  clothed  with 
such  discretionary  power  by  mak- 
ing rules  limiting  that  discretion? 
It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  for 
one  court  to  exercise  discretion  for 
another  court;  and  if  it  cannot, 
who  shall  say  that  it  can,  as  a  ju- 
dicial act  or  otherwise,  make  rules 
limiting  or  regulating  the  decision 
of  another  court  ?    An  attempt  to 


do  so  is  an  attempt  to  legislate.  It 
is  claimed,  however,  that  the  legis- 
lature have  authorized  the  supreme 
court  to  make  rules  for  the  district 
court;  but  this  the  legislature 
could  not  do  if  they  would.  The 
making  of  rules  is  not  a  subject  of 
judicial  power,  as  has  already  been 
shown;  and  the  legislature  cannot 
bring  under  the  judicial  power  a 
matter  which  from  its  nature  is 
not  a  subject  for  judicial  determi- 
nation." Murray  v.  Hoboken  Land 
Imp.  Co.,  18  How.  284;  Auditor  of 
State  v.  A„  T.  &  S.  Fe  R  R.  Co.,  6 
Kan.  500,  7  Am.  Rep.  575. 

47  Act  2d  May,  1862. 

« In  re  Griner,  16  Wis.  423. 

« In  re  Oliver,  17  Wis.  681;  Coe 
v.  Schultz,  47  Barb.  64:  Hildreth  v. 
Crawford,  65  Iowa,  339,  21  N.  W. 
667. 

so  Cincinnati,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v. 
Commissioners,  1  Ohio  St.  77. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  149 

the  power,  nor  impart  it  to  others,  except  in  accordance 
with  this  distinction,  though  there  are  some  recognized  ex- 
ceptions which  will  presently  be  considered.  Legislative 
power  is  delegated  contrary  to  the  maxim  stated  when  the 
legislature  attempts  to  confer  on  others  a  power  of  substan- 
tive legislation,  to  be  exercised  independently  or  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  legislature,  or  when  it  constitutes  an  inferior 
legislature  or  law-making  body.  At  the  same  time  it  is 
necessary  for  the  legislature  to  confer  more  or  less  of  dis- 
cretion upon  executive  and  administrative  officers  in  apply- 
ing a  law  and  carrying  it  into  effect,  and  in  many  cases  it 
is  expedient  to  vest  in  such  officers  more  or  less  of  power  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  purpose  of  applying  and 
executing  the  law.  It  is,  perhaps,  impossible  to  lay  down 
any  general  rule  by  which  it  may  be  certainly  and  readily 
determined  whether  such  a  law  is  or  is  not  an  unlawful  del- 
egation of  legislative  power.51  A  statute  of  Massachusetts 
conferred  power  upon  the  board  of  metropolitan  park  com- 
missioners to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  govern- 
ment and  use  of  the  roadways  and  boulevards  under  its 
care  and  provided  that  breaches  of  such  rules  and  regula- 
tions should  be  deemed  breaches  of  the  peace  and  should  be 
punishable  as  such  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction  of  the 
same.  This  was  held  not  to  be  an  unlawful  delegation  of 
legislative  power,  and,  after  referring  to  the  exception  to 
the  general  rule  in  case  of  municipalities,  the  court  proceeds 
as  follows:  "In  this  commonwealth  legislation  has  crone 
further  than  this.  Apparently  on  grounds  of  expediency 
amounting  almost  to  necessity,  the  making  of  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  preservation  of  the  public  health  has 

81  In  State  v.  Gloucester  County,  ers  of  local  government  have,  for 
50  N.  J.  L.  585,  594.  15  Atl.  272,  the  more  than  three  generations,  been 
court  says:  "  When  we  recur  to  the  delegated  in  our  state,  we  are  ad- 
fact  that  the  power  of  eminent  do-  monished  not  to  be  too  confident 
main  has  been  delegated  to  rail-  in  asserting  where  the  precise  lim- 
roads  and  other  corporations  with-  itation  is  upon  the  competency  of 
out  challenge;  that  the  important  the  legislature  to  delegate  powers 
power  of  taxation  and  all  the  pow-  of  government." 


150  \  \i  ii'i  i  I    OF   ma  ii  i  i:s    in    t,r.\  1.1;  w.. 

been  intrusted  to  boards  of  health  in  towns  as  well  as  in 
.  and  to  a  state  board  of  health,  and  a  violation  of 
rules  established  by  oity  or  town  boards  has  long  been  and 
is  now  punishable  in  the  courts.  The  validity  of  these  stat- 
utes, which  has  long  been  recognized,  stands  upon  one  or  both 
of  two  grounds.  They  may  be  considered  as  being  within 
the  principle  permitting  local  self-government  as  to  such 
matters,  the  board  of  health  being  treated  as  properly  rep- 
n  senting  the  inhabitants  in  making  regulations,  which  often 
are  needed  at  short  notice  and  which  could  not  well  be 
made,  in  all  kinds  of  cases,  by  the  voters  in  town  meeting 
assembled.  Perhaps  some  of  these  statutes  may  also  be  jus- 
tified  constitutionally  on  the  ground  that  the  work  of  the 
board  of  health  is  only  a  determination  of  details  in  the 
nature  of  administration,  which  may  be  by  a  board  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose,  and  that  the  substantive  legisla- 
tion is  that  part  of  the  statute  which  prescribes  a  penalty 
for  the  disobedience  of  the  rules  which  they  make  as  agents 
performing  executive  and  administrative  duties."52 

A  law  of  the  same  state  conferring  upon  the  board  of  po- 
lice of  Boston  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  concern- 
ing itinerant  musicians  was  also  sustained.53  Laws  confer- 
ring similar  powers  upon  state  and  local  boards  of  health 
in  the  administration  of  the  health  laws  have  generally  been 
held  valid.54     An  act  of  congress  authorized  the  secretary 

M  Brodbine  v.  Revere,  182  Mass.  regulating  the  minimum  standards 

66  N.  E.  607.  of  foods,  defining  specific  adultera- 

53  Commonwealth  v.  Plaisted,  148  tions,  etc.     The  claim  was  that  the 

19  N.  E.  224.  act  could  have  no  effect  until  the 

M  Blue  v.  Beach,  155  Ind.  121,  56  board  acted  and  that  the  rules  warn 

N.  EL  89,  80  Am.  St.   Rep.  195,  50  L.  legislation.  The  court  says:    'That 

R  A.  64;  Isenhour  v.  State,  157  Ind.  which  is  required  of  the  state  board 

517,  62  N.  E.40, 87  Am.  St.  Rep.  228;  of  health  has  no  semblance  to  Legis- 

Hurst  v.  Warner,  102  Mich.  238,  60  lation.     It  merely  relates  to  a  pro- 

N.  W.  140,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  525,  26  cedure  in  the  law's  execution  for  a 

L.    R,    A.   484     Isenhour  v.   State  reliableand  uniform  ascertainment 

arose  oat  of  the  pure  food  law  of  of  the  subjects  upon  which  the  law 

Indiana  which  required  the  state  is  intended  to  operate.    .    .    .     The 

.  of  health  to  prepare  rules  peculiar  character  of  the  subject, 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENEKAL.  151 

of  the  interior  in  his  superintendence  of  forest  reservations 
to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  for  their  occupancy  and 
use  as  would  preserve  the  forests  thereon  and  insure  the  ob- 
jects of  such  reservations  and  made  the  violation  of  such 
rules  a  criminal  offense.  This  was  held  to  be  a  valid  law 
by  the  court  of  appeals.55  But  where  the  act  conferred  power 
to  make  the  rule  and  fix  the  penalty  for  its  violation,  it  was 
held  void  on  account  of  the  latter  feature.56  A  statute  of 
Wisconsin  authorized  the  state  board  of  health  "to  make 
such  rules  and  regulations  and  to  take  such  measures  as 
may,  in  its  judgment,  be  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the 
people  from  Asiatic  cholera  or  other  dangerous  contagious 
diseases,"  and  provided  that  dangerous  and  contagious  dis- 
eases as  used  in  the  act  should  be  construed  to  mean  such 
diseases  as  the  board  should  designate  as  contagious  and 
dangerous.  The  law  was  drawn  in  question  in  a  rule  of  the 
board  requiring  a  certificate  of  vaccination  as  a  condition 
of  attending  the  public  schools.  It  was  held  void  as  a  del- 
egation of  legislative  power.57 

embodying  as  it  does  considera-  nary  conditions  exist."  p.  522.  See 
tions  of  sanitary  science,  is  such  as  Ex  parte  McNulty,  77  Cal.  164,  19 
to  require  for  just  legal  control  Pac.  237,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  257. 
something  more  than  legislative  55Dastervigues  v.  United  States, 
wisdom, to  designate  accurately  the  122  Fed.  30,  58  C.  C.  A.  346,  affirm- 
subjects  and  instances  intended  to  ing  118  Fed.  119.  Contra,  United 
be  affected.  The  classification  of  States  v.  Blasingame,  116  Fed.  654. 
these  subjects,  and  the  prescribing  In  the  first  case  it  is  said:  "The 
of  rules  by  which  they  may  be  de-  secretary,  by  adopting  this  rule, 
termined  by  a  qualified  agent,  is  acted  simply  as  the  arm  that  ear- 
not  legislation,  but  merely  the  ex-  ries  out  the  legislative  will.  He 
ercise  of  administrative  power,  did  not  invade  any  of  the  func- 
The  law  itself  is  complete  and  ef-  tions  of  congress.  He  did  not 
fective  in  all  its  parts.  In  respect  make  any  law,  but  he  exercised 
to  the  matters  to  be  determined  by  the  authority  given  to  him,  and 
the  state  board  of  health  in  its  ex-  made  rules  to  preserve  the  forests 
ecution,  it  awaits  the  performance  on  the  reservations  from  destruc- 
of  these  duties.     When  performed  tion." 

the  law  operates  upon  the  things  5(i Harbor  Com'rs  v.  Excelsior  Red- 
done  by  the  board.     While  unper-  wood  Co.,  88  Cal.  491,  26  Pac.  375, 
formed,  the  law  remains  ready  to  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  321. 
be  applied  whenever  the  prelimi-  87  State  v.  Burdge,  95  Wis.  390, 


LOZ  \.\l.ll>li\     OF  STATUTES    in    QENEBAL. 

jj  \H)  (*»'■>.  Power  to  suspend  and  put  in  force  a  statute 
at  pleasure.—  A  section  of  a  statute  relative  to  dogs  made 
the  owner  of  any  dog  liable  to  the  owner  of  domestic  ani- 
mals wonnded  by  it  for  the  damages  without  proving  a 
knowledge  of  its  vicious  disposition;  by  a  provision  of  the 
a>t.  power  was  given  to  the  board  of  supervisors  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  during  the  current  year  their  county 
should  be  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  which 
that  section  constituted  a  part.  It  was  held  that  the  legis- 
lature could  not  confer  that  power."  The  court  pertinently 
remark  that  it  could  no  more  confer  such  a  power  than  to 
authorize  the  board  of  supervisors  of  a  county  to  abolish  in 
such  county  the  days  of  grace  on  commercial  paper,  or  to 
suspend   the  statute  of  limitations.     A  similar  statute  in 


70  N.  W.  347,  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  123, 
37  L.  R  A.  157.  The  court  says: 
'•  The  provisions  of  the  statute  im- 
port and  include  an  absolute  dele- 
gation of  the  legislative  power  over 
the  entire  subject  here  involved, 
and  this,  too,  without  any  previous 
legislative  provision  for  compul- 
sory vaccination,  or  as  a  condition 
of  enrollment  of  children  of  proper 
school  age  as  pupils  in  the  public 
school,  or  of  their  right  to  attend 
such  schools.  Without  any  other 
legislative  authority  than  the 
rights  thus  conferred,  the  state 
board  of  health  assumed  the  power 
to  so  far  control  the  public  schools 
of  the  state  as  to  require  'the 
proper  school  authorities,  in  their 
respective  localities,  to  enforce  the 
rule  in  question.'  It  cannot  be 
iloubted  but  that,  under  appro- 
priate general  provisions  of  law.  in 
relation  to  the  prevention  and  Bup- 
I  ression  of  dangerous  and  conta- 
-  diseases,  authority  may  be 
conferred  by  the  legislature  upon 


the  state  board  of  health  or  local 
boards  to  make  reasonable  rules 
and  regulations  for  carrying  into 
effect  such  general  provisions, 
which  will  be  valid,  and  may  be 
enforced  accordingly.  The  mak- 
ing of  such  rules  and  regulations 
is  an  administrative  function,  and 
not  a  legislative  power,  but  there 
must  be  some  substantive  provis- 
ion of  law  to  be  administered  and 
carried  into  effect.  The  true  test 
and  distinction  whether  a  power 
is  strictly  legislative,  or  whether  it 
is  administrative,  and  merely  re- 
lates to  the  execution  of  the  stat- 
ute law,  is  between  the  delegation 
of  power  to  make  the  law,  which 
necessarily  involves  a  discretion  as 
to  what  it  shall  be,  and  conferring 
authority  and  discretion  as  to  its 
execution,  to  be  exercised  under 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  law.  The 
first  cannot  be  done.  To  the  latter, 
no  valid  objection  can  be  made." 

MSlinger  v.  llenneman,  38  Wis. 
5u  1.  508-510.    8eepost,  §  101. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  153 

Missouri  was  held  void  for  the  same  reason.59  A  general 
statute  formulating  a  road  system  contained  a  provision 
that  "  if  the  county  court  of  any  county  should  be  of  opin- 
ion that  the  provisions  of  the  act  should  not  be  enforced, 
they  might,  in  their  discretion,  suspend  the  operation  of  the 
same  for  any  specified  length  of  time;  and  thereupon  the 
act  should  become  inoperative  in  such  county  for  the  period 
specified  in  such  order,  and  thereupon  order  the  road  to  be 
opened  and  kept  in  good  repair  under  the  laws  theretofore 
in  force."  Gamble,  J.,  said,  "  this  act,  by  its  own  provis- 
ions, repeals  the  inconsistent  provisions  of  a  former  act,  and 
yet  it  is  left  to  the  count}'  court  to  say  which  act  shall  be  in 
force  in  their  county.  The  act  does  not  submit  the  question 
to  the  county  court  as  an  original  question,  to  be  decided 
by  that  tribunal,  whether  the  act  shall  commence  its  opera- 
tion within  the  county;  but  it  became  by  its  own  terms  a 
law  in  every  county  not  excepted  by  name  in  the  act.  It 
did  not  then  require  the  county  court  to  do  any  act  in  order 
to  give  it  effect.  But  being  the  law  in  the  county,  and 
having  by  its  provisions  superseded  and  abrogated  the  in- 
consistent provisions  of  the  previous  laws,  the  county  court 
is  .  .  .  empowered  to  suspend  this  act,  and  revive  the 
repealed  provisions  of  the  former  act.  When  the  question 
is  before  the  county  court,  for  that  tribunal  to  determine 
which  law  shall  be  in  force,  it  is  urged  before  us  that  the 
power  then  to  be  exercised  by  the  court  is  strictly  legisla- 
tive power,  which,  under  our  constitution,  cannot  be  dele- 
gated to  that  tribunal  or  to  any  other  body  of  men  in  the 
state.  In  the  present  case  the  question  is  not  presented  in 
the  abstract;  for  the  county  court  of  Salem  county,  after 
the  act  had  been  for  several  months  in  force  in  that  county, 
did,  by  order,  suspend  its  operation;  and  during  that  sus- 
pension, the  offense  was  committed  which  is  the  subject  of 
the  present  indictment.1' 

59  State  v.  Field,  17  Mo.  529,  59  Am.  Dec.  275.    And  see  Mitchell  v. 
State,  134  Ala.  392,  32  So.  687. 


154  VALIDITY    01     BTATUTE8    IN    OENBBAL. 

§  91,  Authority  to  prescribe  form  of  insurance  policy. 
Several  states  haw  passed  laws  requiring  the  insurance  com 
oner  or  commissioners  to  prepare  a  form  of  insurance 
policy,  with  such  provisions,  agreements  and  conditions  as 
he  might  approve,  and  making  the  use  of  such  form  com- 
pulsory. These  laws  have,  we  believe,  uniformly  been  held 
invalid  as  a  delegation  of  legislative  power.80  In  giving  its 
decision  upon  such  a  law  the  Minnesota  supreme  court,  in 
the  ease  cited,  says:  "It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  prepa- 
ration of  the  form  was  an  unimportant  matter  of  detail,  or 
an  act  partaking  of  an  executive  or  administrative  character. 
It  was  the  sole  purpose  of  the  act.  It  was  the  only  subject 
named  in  the  title.  The  enforcement  of  the  standard  form 
of  policy  was  the  only  object  of  its  penalties.  Take  out  the 
form  prepared  by  the  insurance  commissioner,  and  to  be 
found  in  some  pigeon  hole  in  his  office,  and  the  act  is  with- 
out meaning  or  effect;  it  is  completely  eviscerated.  We  do 
not  see  how  a  case  could  be  stated  that  would  show  a  more 
complete  and  unconstitutional  surrender  of  the  legislative 
function  than  that  presented  by  the  act  of  1891.  By  its 
provisions  the  legislature  says  in  effect  to  its  appointee, '  Pre- 
pare just  such  a  policy  or  contract  as  you  please.  We  do 
not  care  to  know  what  it  is.  The  governor  shall  have  no 
opportunity  to  veto  it.  File  it  in  your  own  office  and  we 
will  compel  its  adoption,  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong,  by 
the  punishment  of  every  company,  officer  or  agent  who 
hesitates  to  use  it.'  " 

:  '.U.  Acts  for  the  incorporation  of  municipalities  or 
for  annexing  or  excluding  territory. —  Acts  for  the  incor- 
poration of  cities,  villages  or  towns,  and  acts  providing  for 
annexing  or  excluding  territorj'  therefrom,  frequently  im- 
pose duties  and  powers  upon  courts  or  judges  in  relation 

on  v.  Manchester  Fire  Am.  St.  Rep.  G50,  26  L.  R.  A.  715; 

Ass'n   <o.,  59  Minn.  182,  64  N.  W.  Dowling  v.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  92 

2)1,  r>()  Am.  St.  Rep.  400,  28  L.  R.  Wis.  63,  65  N.  W.  738,  31  L.  R.  A. 

A.   609;    O'Neill   v.  Am.  Fire   Ins.  112. 
Co.,  166  Pa.   St.  72,  80   Atl.  945,  4.r, 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENEKAL.  155 

thereto.  Such  acts  have  been  assailed  as  delegations  of 
legislative  power,  and  as  conferring  upon  courts  or  judges 
functions  not  judicial.61  A  statute  of  Kansas  provided  for 
the  extension  of  the  limits  of  a  city  by  ordinance,  but  pro- 
vided for  a  hearing  upon  the  proposed  ordinance  before  the 
district  court.  If  the  court  found  that  the  extension  would 
be  for  the  interest  of  the  city  and  no  manifest  injury  to  the 
owners  of  the  land  involved,  it  was  to  approve  the  ordi- 
nance, and  the  court  was  given  power  to  modify  or  disap- 
prove the  proposed  ordinance.  The  council  could  only  pass 
such  an  ordinance  as  was  approved  by  the  court,  but  the 
extension  was  only  effected  by  the  passage  of  the  ordinance. 
It  was  held  that  the  law  was  not  void  as  a  delegation  of 
legislative  power.62  Similar  statutes  have  been  upheld  in 
other  states.63  The  ultimate  question  of  the  policy  or  expe- 
diency of  incorporating  certain  territory  as  a  municipality, 
or  of  determining  what  territory  shall  be  included  in  a  par- 
ticular incorporation,  is  a  legislative  question  and  cannot  be 
delegated  to  a  court  or  judge.64  The  contrary  is  held  in 
Utah  as  to  the  disconnection  of  territory  from  a  city.65  An 
act  for  the  incorporation  of  cities,  which  authorized  the 
township  committee  to  hear  complaints  as  to  territory  to 
be  included  or  excluded  from  the  proposed  incorporation, 
and  to  fix  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed  city,  was  held  not 
a  delegation  of  legislative  power.66 

§  93.  Acts  held  to  be  a  delegation  of  legislative 
power. —  An  act  making  it  the  duty  of  county  commis- 
sioners to  cause  a  road  to  be  improved  in  the  manner  and 

61  The  latter  phase  of  the  subject  14,  47  S.  W.  862;  Copeland  v.  St. 

is  considered  ante,  §  4.  Joseph,  126  Mo.  417,  29  S.  W.  281. 

62Callen    v.    Junction    City,    43  And  see  ante,  §  4. 

Kan.  627,  23  Pac.  652,  7  L  R.  A.  64  in   re  Incorporation  of  North 

736;  Huliug  v.  Topeka,  44  Kan.  577,  Milwaukee,  93  Wis.  616,  67  N.  W. 

24  Pac.    1110;    Hurla    v.     Kansas  1033,  33  L.  R.  A.  638. 

City,  46  Kan.  738,  27  Pac.  143;  Em-  65  Young  v.   Salt  Lake  City,  24 

poria  v.  Randolph,  56  Kan.  117,  42  Utah.  321,  67  Pac.  1066. 

Pac.  376;  Eskridge  v.  Emporia,  63  6e  state  v.  Stout,  58  N.  J.  L.  598,. 

Kan.  368,  65  Pac.  694.  33  Atl.  858. 

63  Lewis  v.  Brandenburg,  105  Ky. 


L56  \.\i.il>liY    OF   ma  11  lis    in    GENERAL. 

within  the  limits  specified  in  a  petition  was  held  void  as 
delegating  legislative  power  to  the  petitioners.07  Tho  fol- 
lowing  wire  held  void  on  the  same  ground:  An  act  author- 
a  publio  officer  to  fix  a  license  fee  for  department 
stores  between  the  limits  of  three  hundred  and  live  hun- 
dred dollars,  in  his  discretion.08  The  legislature  should  fix 
the  amount  or  prescribe  rules  for  its  determination.  An 
act  that  it'  the  labor  commissioner  finds  that  the  injuries 
from  inhaling  dust,  gas,  etc.,  in  any  factory  or  workshop 
may  be  to  a  great  extent  prevented  by  the  use  of  some  de- 
vice, he  may  require  its  use,  and  imposing  a  penalty  for 
failure  to  comply.69  An  act  thaton  petition  of  one  hundred 
voters  of  any  city  the  governor  may,  in  his  discretion,  ap- 
point a  commission  of  three  to  divide  the  city  into  wards.70 
An  act  authorizing  the  circuit  court,  on  the  application  of 
any  city,  to  assign  it  to  the  class  to  which  its  population 
entitles  it  to  belong.71  An  act  providing  that  if  the  local 
authorities  should  fail  to  levy  taxes  for  certain  specified 
purposes,  the  governor  should  appoint  commissioners,  who 
should  levy  such  taxes  in  their  discretion,  not  exceeding  a 
given  per  centum.72 

"When  the  constitution  requires  the  salaries  of  certain  offi- 
cers and  their  deputies  to  be  fixed  by  law,  a  statute  author- 
izing a  court  or  county  board  to  do  so  is  an  unwarranted  dele- 
gation of  the  power.73  The  power  to  create  an  office,  or  to 
consolidate  two  or  more  offices,  or  to  fix  the  terms  or  duties 
pertaining  to  an  office,  has  been  held  to  be  one  which  can- 
not be  delegated,  even  to  a  municipality.74 

"Wyandotte  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Ab-  71Jernigan   v.  Madisonville,    102 

hott,  52  Kan.  148,  34  Pac.  416;  Ho-  Ky.  313,  43  S.  W.  448,  39  L,  R.  A. 

vey  v.  Wyandotte  Co.  Com'rs,  56  214. 

Kan.  577,  44  Pac.  17.  72  Bernards  Tp.  v.  Allen,  61  N.  J. 

brooke,  154  Mo-  375,  L.  228,  39  Atl.  716. 

55  S.  W.  627,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  776.  "Dougherty  v-    Austin>  94  CaI- 

e»Schaezlein  v.  Cabaniss,  135  CaI.  601,  28  Pac.  834,  29  Pac.  1092,  16  L. 

166,  07  Pac  755.  R-  A.  161;  Commonwealth  v.   Ad- 

•..  Elizabeth,  06  N.  J.  dams,  95  Ky.  588.  20  8.  W.  581. 

L  184,  19  Atl.  1106.  74Farrell  v.  Board  of  Trustees,  85 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  157 

§  94.  Acts  held  not  to  be  a  delegation  of  legislative 
power. —  The  following  acts  were  held  not  to  be  a  delega- 
tion of  legislative  power:  An  act  requiring  fire-escapes  on 
certain  buildings  and  providing  that  the  number,  location, 
material  and  construction  of  such  escapes  should  be  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  inspector  of  factories.75  An  act  pro- 
hibiting book-making  and  pool-selling  without  a  license  as 
provided  in  the  act,  and  which  authorized  the  state  auditor 
to  license  the  same  on  a  race  course  or  fair  ground  on  con- 
tests to  take  place  thereon,  "if  satisfied  of  the  good  char- 
acter of  such  applicant,  and  the  good  repute  of  the  race 
course  or  fair  ground  upon  which  the  applicant  may  desire 
to  conduct  such  business."76  An  act  authorizing  certain 
named  persons  to  select  the  site  for  a  public  building.77  An 
act  providing  for  the  transfer  of  inmates  of  a  reformatory 
to  the  state  prison,  if  the  governor  is  of  the  opinion  that 
their  presence  is  detrimental  to  other  inmates  of  the  re- 
formatory.78 Other  cases  holding  the  acts  in  question  not 
to  be  a  delegation  of  legislative  power  are  referred  to  in 
the  margin.79 

Cal.408, 24  Pac.868;  State  v.  Orange,  gated  to  the  state  auditor  is  not 

60  N.  J.  L.  Ill,  36  Atl.  706.  the  power  to  make  a  law,  but  is  a 

The  following  are  additional  ex-  power  to  determine  a  fact  or  thing 

amples  of  laws  held  invalid  as  a  upon  which  the  action  of  the  law 

delegation    of    legislative    power:  depends,  and  it  cannot  be  said  to 

McCabe  v.  Carpenter,  102  Cal.  469,  be    legislative    in   its    character." 

36  Pac.  836;  Noel  v.  People,  187  111.  p.  344. 

587,  58  N.  E.  616,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  «  People  v.  Dunn,  80  Cal.  211,  22 

238,  52  L.  R.  A.  287;  Owensboro  &  Pac.  140,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  118.   And 

Nashville  Ry.  Co.  v.  Todd,  91  Ky.  see  State  v.  McGraw,  13  Wash.  311, 

175,  15  S.  W.  56,  11  L.  R  A.  285;  43  Pac.  176. 

State  v.  Nine  Justices,  90  Tenn.  722,  78  In  re  Linden,  112  Wis.  523,  88 

18  S.  W.  393;  People  v.  Cummings,  N.  W.  645. 

88  Mich.  249,  50  N.  W.  310,  14  L.  R.  «  McGraw  v.  County  Com'rs,  89 
A.  285.  Ala.  407, 8  So.  852:  Kumler  v.  Super- 
's Awns  v.  Ayers,  192  111.  601,  61  visors,  103  Cal.  393,  37  Pac.  383;  Pec- 
N.  E.  851,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  357.  pie  v.  Lodi  High  School  Dist.,124  Cal. 
'•  State  v.  Thompson,  160  Mo.  333,  694,  57  Pac.  660;  Board  of  Co.  Com'rs 
60  S.  W.  1077,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  468.  v.  Smith,  22  Colo.  534,  45  Pac. 
The  court  says:  "The  power  dele-  357;  Reynolds  v.Oneida  Co.  Com'rs, 


- 


VAI.11'1  IV    OF    M'A  i  i   i  I  s    IN    GKN]  R  \l„ 


Aii  act  of  congress  Forbade  the  importation  of  tea  which 
was  inferior  in  purity,  quality,  and  fitness  lor  consumption 

rtain  standards  to  be  fixed  and  established  by  the  sec- 
ret a  ry  of  the  treasury,  on  the  recommendation  of  a  board 
<>!"  tea  experts  appointed  by  him.  The  act  was  assailed  as 
invalid,  because  it  vested  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  with 
power  to  fix  the  standards  and  thereby  determine  what  teas 
might  be  imported  and  what  not.  But  the  court  sustained 
tin-  act  on  the  ground  that  its  object  was  to  prevent  the  im- 
portation of  teas  which  were  unlit  for  consumption,  that 
congress  had,  by  the  act,  legislated  on  the  subject  as  far  as 
was  reasonably  practicable,  and  had  only  left  to  executive 
officials  the  duty  of  determining  what  teas  were  so  unfit, 
and  so  of  bringing  about  the  result  sought  by  the  statute.80 

da  70).  Exceptions  which  have  been  established. — 
There  are  some  valid  delegations  of  legislative  power.  Con- 
gress may  delegate  it  to  territorial  governments/1  And  all 
the  authorities  agree  that  the  power  to  make  local  by-laws 
and  regulations  may  be  delegated  to  municipal  corporations.82 
And,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  such  delegation  may  be 
made  to  quasi  \  mi  die  corporations,  such  as  county  boards. s;! 


6  Idaho,  787.  59  Pac.  730;  People  v. 
Simon,  17G  111.  165,  52  N.  E.  910,  68 
Am.  St  Rep.   175;  Ford   v.  North 
Moines,  80  Iowa,  626,  45  N.  W. 
:  State  v.  Adams  Kxpress  Co., 
Linn.  271,  68  N.  W.  L085;  North- 
ern R.    R.  Co.  v.   Manchester,  etc. 
l:.  l:.  Co.,  66  N.  Jl.  560,  :;l  Atl.  17; 
v.  Barringer,  110  N.  C.  525, 14 
3.  E,  7-1:  Jermyer  v.  Scranton,  ISO 
Pa  St.  595,  -10  Atl  972;  Nelson  v. 
Troy.   11   Wash.   435,   :;'•)  Pac.  974; 
v.  Ileineman,  80  Wis.  253,  49 
.  27  Am.  St  Rep.  34;  E.  A. 
Chatfield  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  110 
Leeper  v.  State,  103  Tenn. 
3.  W.  962,  4^  I..  R,  A.  167; 
Johnson  v.  Martin,  75  Tex.  33,  12 
3.  W.  321;  Hand  v.  Stapleton,  135 


Ala.  156,  33  So.  689;  People  v.  The 
Warden,  39  Misc.  113,  78  N.  Y.  S. 
967;  In  re  Linden,  112  Wis.  523,  88 
N.  W.  615;  Matter  of  La  Society 
1  r mcaise,  etc.,  123  Cal.  525,  56  Pac. 
Kennedy  v.  Pawtucket,  24  1!. 
L  461. 

80  Buttfield  v.  Stranahan,  192  U. 
S.  470;  Buttfield  v.  Bidwell,96  Fed. 
328,  37  C.  C.  A.  500. 

gi  See  ante,  §3  24-26. 

82  State  v.  King.  37  Iowa,  462; 
Brown  v.  Holland,  97  Ky.  249,  30 
S.  W.  629;  State  v.  Gloucester 
County,  50  N.  J.  L.  585,  15  Atl.  272; 
State  v.  Nohl,  113  Wis.  15,  88  N. 
W.  1004. 

83  Ryan  v.  Outagamie  County,  80 
Wis.  336,  50  N.  W.  340;  Wentworth 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  159 

Congress  has  power  to  annul  territorial  legislation;  so  state 
legislatures  may  annul  municipal  laws;  but  the  annulling 
act  has  only  the  effect  of  a  repeal.  They  are  valid  until 
annulled;  they  are  not  thus  made  void  from  the  beginning. 
The  delegation  of  legislative  power  to  cities  is  a  limited 
one  —  to  make  by-laws  or  ordinances;  but  still  a  delegation 
of  legislative  power.84  The  delegation  of  power  in  these 
instances  is  to  formulate  and  put  in  force  rules  of  civil  con- 
duct of  more  or  less  scope.  The  territorial  grant  extends 
to  "all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation;"  it  is  granted  as 
broadly  as  by  constitutions  to  the  state  legislatures.  The 
power  to  legislate  for  the  territories  was  granted  to  congress 
by  the  federal  constitution.85  The  delegation  of  it  to  the 
territorial  government  is  a  departure  from  the  general  rule, 
but  consistent  with  the  principles  which  support  the  rule; 
for  it  is  a  concession  of  the  right  of  self-government  to  those 
who  would  otherwise  have  no  voice  in  making  the  laws 
which  govern  them.  The  delegation  of  this  power  to  mu- 
nicipalities is  justified  on  the  ground  of  presumed  intention 
of  the  people,  from  the  immemorial  practice  in  this  countrv 
and  in  England  of  creating  their  local  governments.86   These 

v.  Racine  County,  99  Wis.  26,  74  N.  tive  functions  to  any  man  or  set  of 

W.  574.                                              t  men  acting  either  in  an  individual 

84  Kelly  v.  Meeks,  87  Mo.  396,  13  or  corporate  capacity.  That  it  may 
Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  220.  has  been  too  long  settled  and  ac- 

85  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  quiesced  in  by  every  department 
How.  393,  15  L.  Ed.  691;  National  of  the  government  and  by  the 
Bank  v.  County  of  Yankton,  101  people  to  be  now  disputed  or  even 
U.  S.  129,  25  L.  Ed.  1046.  discussed.      The  taxing  power    is 

8(JTrigally  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  6  Cold,  unquestionably  a  legislative  power, 
382:  Clarke  v.  Rochester,  28  N.  Y.  and  one  of  the  highest  importance, 
605;  State  v.  Gloucester  County,  and  yet  it  has,  ever  since  the  adop- 
50  N.  J.  L.  585, 15  Atl.  272;  Cooley's  tion  of  the  constitution,  been  par- 
Con.  Li  m.  143.  This  subject  is  thus  tially  delegated  to  the  justices  of 
discussed  by  Battle,  J.,  in  Thomp-  the  county  courts  and  to  every  in- 
6on  v.  Floyd,  2  Jones'  L.  313:  corporated  city,  town  and  village 
*'  Neither  is  it  necessary  for  us  to  throughout  the  state.  The  power 
consider  the  general  question  to  pass  laws  and  ordinances  for  the 
whether  the  general  assembly  can  government  of  the  members  of  a 
delegate  any  portion  of  its  legisla-  corporation  is  a  legislative  power, 


1'  0 


\  A I  11 'I  I  \     OF    ST  ATI   lis    IN    GENERAL. 


departures  decentralize  tin-  governing  power;  the  governed 
thus  a  direct  voioe  in  the  regulation  of  their  local  af- 
fairs. But  what  tin1  legislature  is  expressly  Forbidden  to  do 
■  not  delegate  tin1  power  to  do.H7  A  constitutional  pro- 
vision expressly  authorizing  the  legislature  to  delegate  the 
power  of  taxation  to  counties  and  incorporated  towns  was 
held  to  impliedly  exclude  all  other  delegation  of  the  power; 
and  an  act  creating  a  levee  district  with  power  to  tax  was 
held  void."' 

§  96  (71).  Effect  of  submitting  laws  or  questions  con- 
trolling their  effect  to  popular  vote  of  the  state  at  large. 
The  legislature  having  the  general  power  of  enacting  laws 
may  enact  them  in  its  own  form  when  not  restricted,  and 
give  them  such  effect,  to  be  worked  out  in  such  a  way  and 
by  such  means  as  it  chooses  to  prescribe.  It  may  provide 
that  a  law  shall  go  into  effect  at  one  time  or  another;  abso- 


and  yet  no  person  has  yet  thought 
it  an  infringement  of  the  constitu- 
tion for  the  legislature  to  confer 
the  power  of  making  by-laws  upon 
the  corporation  itse.f.  The  power 
of  prescribing  rules  for  the  orderly 
ci.ii'luctof  business  in  a  court  of 
justice  is  a  legislative  power,  and 
yet  it  has  often  been  intrusted  to 
the  courts  themselves  with  the  ap- 
pr<  bation  of  everybody.  The  truth 
is,  that  in  the  management  of  all 
the  various  and  minute  details 
which  a  highly  civilized  and  re- 
fined society  requires,  the  general 
assembly  must  have,  and  are  uni- 
lly  conceded  to  have,  the 
power  to  act  by  means  of  agents, 
which  agents  may  be  either  indi- 
viduals or  political  bodies,  most 
generally  the  latter.  Without  such 
power  the  legislature  would  be  an 
unwieldly  body,  incapable  of  ac- 
;  lishing  one-half  of  the  great 
purposes  for  which  it  was  created. 


"  The  act  [in  question]  authorized 
the  county  court  to  ascertain  a 
fact,  i.  e.  whether  a  majority  of 
them  were  in  favor  of  surrender- 
ing the  jurisdiction  of  having  jury 
trials  in  that  court,  and  in  the 
event  of  the  fact  being  thus  found, 
enacted  that  thereafter  such  juris- 
diction should  be  taken  from  them 
and  vested  exclusively  in  the  su- 
perior court  of  the  county.  When 
the  fact  was  ascertained  and  the 
consequence  ensued,  the  county 
courts  were  fundi  officio  —  had  no 
further  power  over  the  matter; 
they  had  not  in  any  proper  sense 
legislative  power." 

87  Yarnell  y.  Los  Angeles,  87  Cal. 
603,  25  Pac  767;  Tacoma  v.  Krech, 
15  Wash.  296,  46  Pac.  255. 

88  Reelfoot  Lake  Levee  Dist.  v. 
Dawson,  07  Tenn.  151,  36  S.  W 
1041,  34  L.  R  A.  725. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


161 


lutely  or  on  condition;  upon  certain  terms  or  on  a  certain 
event,  or  'without  regard  to  future  events.89 

§  97  (72).  It  is  agreed  by  all  the  authorities  that  an  act 
may  be  valid  though  its  taking  effect  is  made  to  depend  on 
a  future  contingent  event.  The  case  of  the  Cargo  of  Brig 
Aurora  v.  United  States 90  presents  an  instance  of  such  an 
act. 

The  result  of  a  popular  vote  is  an  uncertain  event;  but 
there  is  some  diversity  of  decision  on  the  question  whether 
the  taking  effect  of  a  general  act  can  be  made  to  depend  on 
such  a  contingency.  Very  few  cases,  however,  have  come 
before  the  courts  involving  that  question.  Barto  v.  Him- 
rod 91  is  an  early  one  of  that  limited  number,  decided  in  1853. 
An  act  "establishing  free  schools  throughout  the  state"  was 


89  Hobart  v.  Supervisors,  17  Cal. 
23.  In  Blanding  v.  Burr,  13  Cal. 
357,  Field,  J.,  said  of  a  local  law 
providing  for  its  submission  to 
popular  vote:  "The  act  in  question 
authorizes  the  issuance  of  the  bonds 
upon  the  condition  that  objection 
to  their  issuance  was  not  inter- 
posed in  a  specified  manner.  As  an 
emanation  of  the  legislative  will  it 
was  perfect  in  all  its  parts.  The 
condition  upon  the  exercise  of  au- 
thority was  imposed  by  the  legis- 
lature itself,  and  involved  no  dele- 
gation of  legislative  authority. 
Laws  may  be  absolute,  dependent 
upon  no  contingency,  or  they  may 
be  subject  to  such  conditions  as 
the  legislature,  in  its  wisdom,  may 
impose.  They  may  take  effect  only 
upon  the  happening  of  events 
which  are  future  and  uncertain; 
and,  among  others,  the  voluntary 
act  of  the  parties  upon  whom  they 
are  designed  to  operate.  They  are 
not  less  perfect  and  complete  when 
passed  by  the  legislature,  though 
11 


future  and  contingent  events  may 
determine  whether  or  not  they 
shall  ever  take  effect.  In  anticipa- 
tion of  invasion  or  insurrection  or 
local  disturbance,  or  other  emer- 
gencies requiring  the  exercise  of 
special  powers,  acts  were  con- 
stantly passed,  and  yet  no  one  has 
ever  questioned  their  validity  as 
laws  because  dependent  in  their 
operation  upon  occasions  which 
may  never  arise.  So  the  legislature 
may  confer  a  power  without  desir- 
ing to  enforce  its  exercise,  and 
leave  the  question  whether  it  shall 
be  assumed  to  be  determined  by 
the  electors  of  a  particular  district. 
The  legislature  may  determine  ab- 
solutely what  shall  be  done,  or  it 
may  authorize  the  same  thing  to 
be  done  upon  the  consent  of  third 
parties.  It  may  command,  or  it 
may  only  permit;  and  in  the  latter 
case,  as  in  the  former,  its  acts  have 
the  efficacy  of  laws." 

90  7  Cranch,  382,  3  L.  Ed.  378. 

91  8  N.  Y.  483,  59  Am.  Dec.  506. 


\  ■     tDITl    01     STATUTES    in    OEM  KM.. 

by  its  terms  to  be  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
state  to  determine  "  whether  this  net  shall  or  shall  not  be- 
oome  a  law."    The  act  —  not  merely  tho  provisions  for  sub- 
'ii  —  was  held  void,  because  there  was  a  delegation  of 
ative  power  to  the  people;  they  were  to  decide  whether 
aid  become  a  law  or  not.     The  aot  was  framed  and 
duly  passed  by  the  legislature  and  approved.     It  provided 
for  a  system  of  free  schools.     It  enacted  that  it  should  be 
I  upon;  what  should  be  the  effect  of  a  majority  in  the 
tive,  and  the  effect  of  a  majority  in  the  affirmative.   In 
one  event  the  system  was  to  be  practically  adopted  —  put 
in  ('[teration;  in  the  other,  it  was  to  be  abandoned;  these 
effects  were  alternatives  in  the  act;  it  was  so  written.     If 
valid,  the  system  would  go  into  effect  or  not,  because  the 
legislature  had  so  provided.     In  either  case  the  act  would. 
te  as  a  law.     The  expressions,  therefore,  in  one  event, 
that  the  act  should  "become  a  law,'*  and  in  the  other  that 
it  should  "not  become  a  law,"  were  precisely  equivalent  in 
substance  to  "take  effect"  or  "not  take  effect."    And  Rug- 
gles,  C.  J.,  said:  "If,  by  the  terms  of  the  act,  it  had  been 
declared  to  be  law  from  the  time  of  its  passage,  to  take  ef- 
fect in  case  it  should  receive  a  majority  of  votes  in  its  favor, 
it  would  nevertheless  have  been  invalid,  because  the  result 
of  the  popular  vote  upon  the  expediency  of  the  law  is  not 
such  a  future  event  as  the  statute  can  be  made  to  take  effect 
upon,  according  to  the  meaning  and  intent  of  the  constitu- 
tion.' 

'-The  chief  justice  amplified  in  must  exercise  its  own   judgment 

this     language:     "The    event    or  definitively  and  finally.     When  a 

_••■  of  circumstances  on  which  law  is  made  to  take  effect  upon 

a  law  may  be  made  to  take  effect  the  happening  of  such  an  event, 

be  such  as,  in  the  judgment  the  legislature  in  effect  declare  the 

of  tlie  legislature,  affects  the  ques-  law  inexpedient  if  the  event  should 

tion  of  the  expediency  of  the  law;  not   happen;    but  expedient  if  it 

an  event  on  which  the  expediency  should  happen.    They  appeal  to  no 

of  the  law  in  the  judgment  of  the  other  man  or  men  to  judge  for 

lawmakers  dependa    On  this  ques-  them  in  relation  to  its  present  or 

tion  of  expediency  the  legislature  future  expediency.    They  exercise 


VALIDITY   OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  163 

A  case  arose  in  Iowa  involving  a  similar  question,  and  it 
was  decided  in  the  same  way.93  It  recognized  the  validity 
of  laws  made  to  take  effect  upon  the  happening  of  a  con- 
tingent event.  On  the  question  whether  the  result  of  a 
popular  vote  on  the  act  going  into  effect  was  an  event  on 
which  its  going  into  effect  could  be  made  to  depend,  the 
court  used  this  language:  "If  the  people  are  to  say  whether 
an  act  shall  become  a  law,  they  become,  or  are  put  in  the 
place  of,  the  law  makers.  And  here  is  the  constitutional 
objection.  Their  will  is  not  a  contingency  upon  which  cer- 
tain things  are,  or  are  not,  to  be  done  under  the  law,  but  it 
becomes  the  determining  power  whether  such  shall  be  the 
law  or  not.  This  makes  them  the  'legislative  authority,' 
wThich,  by  the  constitution,  is  vested  in  the  senate  and 
house  of  representatives,  and  riot  in  the  people."  The  legis- 
lature cannot  refer  a  bill  to  the  people  for  them  to  make  it 
a  law  by  popular  vote.  When  such  vote  is  called  for  to 
give  the  force  of  law  to  a  proposal  or  plan  of  a  lawT  formu- 

that  power  themselves,  and  thus  fading  to  others  that  legislative  dis- 
perform  the  duty  which  the  con-  cretion  which  they  are  bound  to 
stitution  imposes  upon  them.  exercise  themselves,  and  which 
"  But  in  the  present  case  no  such  they  cannot  delegate  or  commit  to 
event  or  change  of  circumstances  any  other  man  or  men  to  be  exer- 
affecting  the  expediency  of  the  cised.  They  have  no  more  author- 
law  was  expected  to  happen.  The  ity  to  refer  such  a  question  to  the 
wisdom  or  expediency  of  the  free-  whole  people  than  to  an  individual, 
school  act,  abstractly  considered,  The  people  are  sovereign,  but  their 
did  not  depend  on  the  vote  of  the  sovereignty  must  be  exercised  in 
people.  If  it  was  unwise  or  inex-  the  mode  which  they  have  pointed 
pedient  before  that  vote  was  taken,  out  in  the  constitution.  All  legis- 
it  was  equally  so  afterwards.  The  lative  power  is  derived  from  the 
event  on  which  the  act  was  made  people;  but  when  the  people 
to  take  effect  was  nothing  else  adopted  the  constitution  they  sur- 
than  the  vote  of  the  people  on  the  rendered  the  power  of  making  laws 
identical  question  which  the  con-  to  the  legislature,  and  imposed  it 
Btitution  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  upon  that  body  as  a  duty." 
legislature  itself  to  decide.  The  9S  Santo  v.  State,  2  Iowa,  165,  63 
legislature  has  no  power  to  make  a  Am.  Dec.  487.  See  Geebrick  v. 
statute  dependent  on  such  a  con-  State,  5  Iowa,  491;  Weir  v.  Cram,  37 
tingency,  because  it  would  be  con-  id.  649;  State  v.  Weir,  33  id.  134. 


1,[  VALIDITY    0]     STATUTES   IN   GENERAL. 

lated  by  the  legislature  and  submitted  to  the  people,  the 
courts  only  deolare  a  truism,  on  which  there  is  no  dissent, 
in  holding  acts  so  adopted  unconstitutional.  But  if  an  act 
is  adopted  by  the  legislature  as  a  law,  and,  pursuant  to  its 
provisions,  il  is  submitted  to  the  people,  and  on  their  expres- 
sion of  approval  or  disapproval,  as  a  fact  or  event,  the  act 
by  its  terms  does  or  does  not  take  effect,  or  takes  effect  at 
one  particular  date  rather  than  another,  then  apparently 

nly  question  is  whether  the  legislature  can  pass  a  law 
to  take  effect  on  such  a  contingency.  The  authorities  would 
seem  now  to  have  established  the  doctrine,  though  not  uni- 
versally, that  the  result  of  a  popular  vote  is  a  contingency 
on  which  laws  may  be  enacted  to  take  effect.94 

In  a  late  case  in  Mississippi,95  Campbell,  J.,  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  court,  said:  "  On  the  question  of  the  right  to 
make  an  act  of  the  legislature  to  depend  for  its  operation 
on  a  future  contingency,  argument  was  exhausted  long  ago, 
and  the  principle  established  by  oft-repeated  examples,  and 
by  adjudications  in  this  state  and  elsewhere  in  great  num. 

that  this  may  be  done  without  violating  the  constitu- 
tion. It  is  idle  to  talk  of  precedent  and  subsequent  contin- 
gencies or  conditions,  between  defeating  the  operation  of 
an  act  or  putting  it  in  operation.  There  is  no  such  distinc- 
tion. It  is  merely  fanciful  and  deceptive.  It  is  for  the 
jlature  in  its  discretion  to  prescribe  the  future  contin- 
gency,  and  it  is  not  an  objection  on  constitutional  grounds 
that  a  popular  vote  is  made  the  contingency." 

98.  The  legislature  of  Massachusetts  submitted  to  the 
supreme  court,  for  its  opinion,  the  following  questions: 
"  1.  Is  it  constitutional,  in  an  act  granting  to  women  the 

9*  See  cases  cited  cm £e,  g.<  90,  07;  Reynolds,    5    Gilm.    1;    Alcorn   v. 

People  v.  Hoffman,  11G  I1L  587,  5  Hamer,  88  Miss.  652;  Guild  v.  Chi- 

N.  t:.  596,  56  Am.  Kep.  79:.  11  Am.  cago,  82  111.  472;  Locke's  Appeal, 

&   EnK.    Corp.   Cas.  40;  Potwin  v.  72   Pa   St.  491;  People  v.  Butte,  4 

Johnson,  108   111.  70;  Fell  v.  State,  Mont.    174;    State    v.   Wilcox,    42 

Mayor,  etc.  v.  Clunet,  23  Conn.  304;  State  v.  Cooke,  24  Minn. 

id.  409;  Bull  v.  Bead,  13  Gratt,  88;  217,  :;l  Am.  Rep.  344. 

-.-.  Pue,  2  Gill,  11;  People  "S-  hulherr  v.  Bordeaux, 64 Miss. 

.lomon,  51    111.   37;   People  v.  59,  8  So.  201. 


VALIDITY   OF   STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  165 

right  to  vote  in  town  and  city  elections,  to  provide  that 
such  act  shall  take  effect  throughout  the  commonwealth 
upon  its  acceptance  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  voters  of  the 
whole  commonwealth? 

"2.  Is  it  constitutional  to  provide  in  such  an  act  that  it 
shall  take  effect  in  a  city  or  town  upon  its  acceptance  by  a 
majority  vote  of  the  voters  of  such  city  or  town? 

"3.  Is  it  constitutional,  in  an  act  granting  to  women 
the  right  to  vote  in  town  and  city  elections,  to  provide 
that  such  an  act  shall  take  effect  throughout  the  com- 
monwealth upon  its  acceptance  by  a  majority  vote  of  the 
voters  of  the  whole  commonwealth,  including  women  spe- 
cially authorized  to  register  and  to  vote  on  this  question 
alone?" 

Field,  chief  justice,  and  Allen,  Morton  and  Lathrop,  jus- 
tices, concurred  in  answering  all  the  questions  in  the  nega- 
tive. Justices  Holmes  and  Barker  answered  all  in  the 
affirmative,  while  Justice  Knowlton  answered  the  first  and 
third  in  the  negative  and  the  second  in  the  affirmative.9* 
The  majority  say  in  their  opinion:  "  It  is  true  that  a  gen- 
eral law  can  be  passed  by  the  legislature,  to  take  effect 
upon  the  happening  of  a  subsequent  event.  Whether  this 
subsequent  event  can  be  the  adoption  of  the  law  by  a  vote 
of  the  people  has  occasioned  some  differences  of  opinion, 
but  the  weight  of  authority  is  that  a  general  law  cannot  be 
made  to  take  effect  in  this  manner.  Whether  such  legis- 
lation is  submitted  to  the  people  as  a  proposal  for  a  law,  to 
be  voted  upon  by  them,  and  to  become  a  law  if  they  approve 
it,  or  as  a  law  to  take  effect  if  they  vote  to  approve  it,  the 
substance  of  the  transaction  is  that  the  legislative  depart- 
ment declines  to  take  the  responsibility  of  passing  the  law; 
but  the  law  has  force,  if  at  all,  in  consequence  of  the  votes 
of  the  people;  they  ultimately  are  the  legislators.  It  seems 
to  us  that  by  the  constitution  the  senate  and  the  house  of 
representatives  have  been  made  the  legislative  department 

96  Opinion  of  the  Justices,  160  Mass.  58G,  36  N.  E.  488,  23  L,  R.  A.  lia 


VALIDITY    01    BTATDTEB    in    GENERAL. 

of  the  government,  and  thai  there  has  not  been  reserved  to 
the  people  any  direct  part  in  legislation."97 
§  ♦.)!>  ;:;  .  Same  — Cases  maintaining  constitutionality 

<>l  BUCh  acts. —  Two  eases  arose  in  1854  involving  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  provision  of  an  act  was  valid  which  referred 
to  the  people  a  choice  of  the  time  when  an  act  should  take 
one  was  State  v.  Parker.98  By  the  terms  of  the 
act  it  was  to  take  effect  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March, 

with  a  proviso  "that  if  a  majority  of  the  ballots  to  bo 

a  hereinafter  provided  shall  be  'no,'  then  this  act  shall 
take  effect  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  A.  D.  1853." 
The  act  was  held  valid.  The  case  must  have  been  deter 
mined  in  the  same  way  had  the  proviso  for  submission  to 
the  people  been  held  void,  and  the  act  otherwise  valid;  but 
the  proviso  was  sustained  upon  thorough  consideration 
Redfield,  ('.  J.,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court,  used 
this  language:  "It  seems  to  me  that  the  distinction  at- 
tempted between  the  contingency  of  a  popular  vote  and 
other  future  uncertainties  is  without  all  just  foundation  in 
sound  policy  or  sound  reasoning,  and  that  it  has  too  often 
been  made  more  from  necessity  than  choice  —  rather  to 
escape  from  an  overwhelming  analogy  than  from  any  obvi- 
ous difference  in  principle  in  the  two  classes  of  cases;  for 

.  one  may  find  any  number  of  cases  in  the  legislation 
of  congress  where  statutes  have  been  made  dependent  upon 

shifting  character  of  the  revenue  laws,  or  the  naviga- 
tion laws,  or  commercial  rules,  edicts  or  restrictions  of  other 
countries." 

The  other  case  is  People  v.  Collins."    The  act  in  question 

passed  in  February,  1853.  It  provided  in  substance 
that  if  a  majority  of  the  votes  were  "yes,"  the  act  should 
"  become  a  law  of  the  state  from  and  after  the  1st  day  of 

iber,  1853,  and  if  a  majority  were  'no,'  then  the  act 
should  take  effect  and  become  a  law  from  and  after  the  1st 

same  effect,  State  v.  Hayes,        98  20  Vt.  867. 
64  N.  II.  -     ■  Mich.  34a 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  1G7 

clay  of  March,  1870."     The  court  was  equally  divided  on 
the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  act.1 

In  Smith  v.  Janesville,2  the  supreme  court  of  Wisconsin 
held  a  general  act  valid  which  by  its  provisions  was  to  take 
effect  only  after  approval  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  vot- 
ing on  the  subject  at  a  general  election.  The  court,  by 
Dixon,  C.  J.,  thus  maintains  the  validity  of  acts  referred  to 
the  people  for  approval  or  disapproval:  "This,"  he  says, 
"  is  no  more  than  providing  that  the  act  should  take  effect 
qn  the  happening  of  a  certain  future  contingency,  that  con- 
tingency being  a  popular  vote  in  its  favor.  No  one  doubts 
the  general  power  of  the  legislature  to  make  such  regula- 
tions and  conditions  as  it  pleases  with  regard  to  the  taking 
effect  or  operation  of  laws.  They  may  be  absolute  or  con- 
ditional, and  contingent;  and  if  the  latter,  they  may  take 
effect  on  the  happening  of  any  event  which  is  future  and 
uncertain.  Instances  of  this  kind  of  legislation  are  not  un- 
frequent.  The  law  of  congress  suspending  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  during  the  late  rebellion  is  one.3  It 

being  conceded  that  the  legislature  possesses  this  general 
power,  the  only  question  here  would  seem  to  be  whether  a 
vote  of  the  people  in  favor  of  a  law  is  to  be  excluded  from 
the  number  of  these  future  contingent  events  upon  which  it 
may  be  provided  that  it  shall  take  effect.  A  similar  ques- 
tion was  before  this  court  in  a  late  case4  and  was  verv 
elaborately  discussed.  We  came  unanimously  to  the  con- 
clusion in  that  case,  that  a  provision  for  a  vote  of  the  elect- 
ors of  the  city  of  Milwaukee  in  favor  of  an  act  of  the  legis- 
lature, before  it  should  take  effect,  was  a  lawful  contingency, 
and  that  the  act  was  valid.  That  was  a  law  affecting  the 
people  of  Milwaukee  particularly,  while  this  was  one  affect- 
ing the  people  of  the  whole  state.  There  the  law  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  of  that  city,  and  here  it  was  submitted 
to  those  of  the  state  at  large.     What  is  the  difference  bc- 

1  See  People  v.  Burns,  5  Mich.  114.        3  in  re  Oliver,  17  Wis.  681. 
226  Wis.  291.  4  State  v.  O'Neill,  24  Wis.  149. 


VALIDITY    OF   si  A  i  i  i  i  s    in    QENEBA.L. 

tween  the  two  oases?    It  is  manifest,  on  prinoiple,  that 
there  cannot  be  any."8 

§  1(H)  (74).  The  operation  and  terms  of  an  act  may  lie 
made  to  depend  on  foreign  legislation. —  A  statute  of  Illi- 
nois provides  a  general  rate  of  taxation  and  scale  of  fees 
to  be  paid  by  foreign  insurance  companies  doing  business 
in  that  state  It  also  provides,  by  way  of  exception,  that 
wh.ro  the  laws  of  the  state  to  which  such  foreign  company 
belonged  had  imposed,  or  should  thereafter  impose,  upon 
Illinois  insurance  companies  doing  business  therein  a  higher 
rate  of  taxation  than  is  required  by  the  laws  of  Illinois,  then 
the  insurance  companies  of  that  state  doing  business  in  Illi- 
nois should  there  pay  the  higher  rate  charged  in  the  state 
to  which  they  belonged  upon  Illinois  companies  doing  busi- 
ness in  such  state.  The  validity  of  this  statute  came  in 
:  ion  in  a  late  case  in  that  state.6  It  was  objected  to  on 
the  ground  that  thereby  the  legislature  had  abdicated  its 
legislative  functions  and  surrendered  them  to  a  foreign 
state.  The  court  denied  the  force  of  this  objection,  and  by 
Mnlkey,  J.,  thus  answered  it:  "  It  is  competent  for  the  leg- 
islature to  pass  a  law  the  ultimate  operation  of  which  may 
by  its  own  terms  be  made  to  depend  upon  some  contin- 
gency, as  upon  the  affirmative  vote  by  the  electors  of  a 
given  district,  or  upon  any  other  indifferent  contingency  the 
legislature  in  its  wisdom  may  prescribe.  "Where  the  con- 
tingency upon   which   the  ultimate  operation  of  a  law  is 

6  The  constitution  of  South  Da-  ture  may  have  enacted  shall  be 

kota,  section  1,  article  3,  reserves  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  electors 

to  the  people  the  right  to  initiate  of  the  state  before  going  into  ef- 

ition  by  a  petition  of  five  per  feet,  except  such  laws  as  may  be 

of  the  qualified  electors  of  necessary  for  the  immediate  pres- 

the  state,  whereupon  it  is  made  the  ervation  of  the  public  peace,  health 

duty  of  the  legislature  to  pass  the  or  safety,  support  of  the  state  gov- 

law  petitioned  for  and  submit  it  to  eminent  and  its  existing  public  in- 

a  popular  vote  of  the  state.     There  stitutions."    See  State  v.  Bacon,  14 

is  also  reserved  to  the  people  the  S.  D.  394,  85  N.  W.  605. 

right,  by  like  petition,  "to  require  •'Home  Ins.  Co.  v.   Swigert,   104 

that  any  laws  which  the  legisla-  111.  653. 


VALIDITY    OF   STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  169 

made  to  depend  consists  of  a  vote  of  the  people,  or  the  ac- 
tion of  some  foreign  deliberative  or  legislative  body,  as  is 
the  case  here,  it  is  erroneous  to  suppose  the  legislature  in 
such  case  abandons  its  own  legislative  functions,  or  dele- 
gates its  powers  to  the  people  in  the  one  case  or  to  such 
foreign  deliberative  or  legislative  body  in  the  other.  In 
either  case  the  law  is  complete  when  it  comes  from  the 
hands  of  the  legislature,  otherwise  it  would  be  inoperative 
and  void;  for  we  fully  recognize  the  principle  that  a  law, 
properly  so  called,  cannot  have  a  mere  fragmentary  or  in- 
choate existence;  and  even  if  it  could,  neither  the  people 
by  a  vote,  nor  any  other  independent  body,  could  complete 
the  unfinished  work  of  the  legislature,  and  thus  make  it  a 
law.  But  while  this  is  so,  nothing  is  better  settled  than 
that  the  operation  and  even  remedial  character  of  a  perfect 
and  complete  law  may,  by  virtue  of  limitations  contained 
in  the  law  itself,  based  upon  contingent  extraneous  matters, 
be  enlarged,  diminished,  or  wholly  defeated.  Such  laws, 
though  adopted,  and  absolutely  perfect  in  all  their  parts, 
yet  by  their  own  limitations  they  are  applicable  to  a  hypo- 
thetical condition  of  things  only,  and  which  may  or  may 
not  ever  happen."  Similar  laws  have  been  upheld  in  other 
states.7 

§  101.  Effect  of  giving  president  power  to  suspend  oper- 
ation of  act. — A  national  revenue  act  gave  the  president 
power,  whenever  satisfied  that  any  country  producing  and 
exporting  sugars,  molasses,  coffee,  tea  and  hides,  imposes 
duties  upon  the  agricultural  or  other  products  of  the  United 
States,  which  he  may  deem  to  be  unequal  and  unreasonable, 
to  suspend  by  proclamation  the  provisions  of  the  act  in  ref- 
erence to  the  free  introduction  of  the  above  articles,  for  such 
time  as  he  shall  deem  just,  and  the  act  prescribed  certain 
duties  which  should  be  levied  upon  any  of  these  articles  im- 
ported during  such  suspension.  The  act  was  held  not  to  be 
a  delegation  of  legislative  power.     The  court  says:  "  As  the 

7Talbott  v.  Fidelity  &  Casualty    nix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Welch,  29  Kan.  672; 
Co.,  74  Md.  536,  22  AtL  395;  Phoe-    People  v.  Fire  Ass'n,  92  N.  Y.  311. 


IT"  VALIDITY     OF    BTAT1   I  I  a    in    QENI  RAL. 

suspension  was  absolutely  required  when  the  president  as- 
in.l  the  existence  of  a  particular  fact,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  in  ascertaining  that  fact  and  in  issuing  his  proclama- 
tion, in  obedience  to  tho  legislative  will,  ho  exercised  the 
Function  of  making  laws.  Legislative  power  was  exercised 
when  congress  declared  that  the  suspension  should  take  ef- 
fect upon  a  named  contingency.  What  the  president  was 
required  to  do  was  simply  in  execution  of  tho  act  of  con- 

3,  It  was  not  the  making  of  law.  lie  was  tho  mere 
agent  of  the  law-making  department  to  ascertain  and  declare 
the  event  upon  which  its  expressed  will  was  to  take  effect. 
It  was  a  part  of  the  law  itself  as  it  left  the  hands  of  con- 
that  the  provisions,  full  and  complete  in  themselves, 
permitting  the  free  introduction  of  sugars,  molasses,  coffee, 
tea  and  hides,  from  particular  countries,  should  be  suspended, 

_riven  contingency,  i\nd  that  in  case  of  such  suspensions 
certain  duties  should  be  imposed."8 

102(75).  Local  laws  dependent  on  popular  vote  gen- 
erally held  valid. —  It  is  now  settled  that  laws,  at  least  of 
local  application,  may  be  imperative  or  permissive;  they 
may  authorize  the  people  of  cities,  villages,  townships, 
counties,  groups  of  counties,  or  other  limited  districts,  not 
otherwise  defined  than  for  the  purposes  of  such  acts,  to  de- 
termine  for  themselves  local  questions  of  police,  taxation,  or 
any  other  matter  affecting  their  local  welfare;  and  the  law 
may  be  conditioned  to  carry  into  effect  their  determination 
or  option.9  They  have  thus  been  authorized  to  decide  by 
popular  vote  and  execute  their  decision  to  contribute  for  the 
building  of  railroads  or  other  like  public  improvements; 10 

SFieM  v.   Clark,   143   U.   S.   G49,  Commissioners,  1  Ohio  St.  77;  Ho 

693,  12  a  C.  495,  86  L.  Ed.  294.  bart    v.    Supervisors,    17    Cal.    23; 

BBlanding  v.   Burr,  18  Cal  843;  Moers  v.  Reading,  21  Pa.  St.  189; 

■  v.  Salomon.  51  III.  37.  Bank  of  Rome  v.  Village  of  Rome, 

win   v.  Town   of  Genoa,  23  18  N.  Y.  38;  Cotton  v.  Leon  County, 

N.  Y.  439;  Clarke  v.  Rochester,  28  6  Fla.  G10;  Powers  v.  Inferior  Ct, 

Courter,  24  28  Ga.  65;  State  v.  O'Neill,  Mayor, 

Barb.   212;  Corning  v.  Greene,  23  etc.,  24  Wis.  149;  Alcorn  v.  Hanier, 

;  Cincinnati,  etc.  R  R.  Co.  v.  33   Misa   652;   Slack  v.   Maysville, 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL. 


171 


to  divide  a  county  or  organize  a  new  one; ll  to  establish  or 
remove  a  county  seat;12  whether  there  shall  be  license  or 
prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic; 13  whether  paupers  shall  be 
a  county  or  a  township  charge;  M  whether  two  municipali- 
ties shall  be  united  into  one;15  whether  they  will  have  a 
system  of  free  schools; 16  whether  a  school  district  shall  be 
established  or  dissolved;17  whether  a  public  library  shall  be 


etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  B.  Mon.  1;  State  v. 
Hudson  County,  52  N.  J.  L.  398,  20 
Atl.  255;  Black  v.  Com'rs,  129  N.  C. 
121,  39  S.  E.  818;  Rose  v.  Beaver 
County,  204  Pa.  St.  372,  54  Atl.  263. 
ii  People  v.  McFadden,  81  Cal. 
4S9,  22  Pac.  851, 15  Am.  St.  Rep.  66; 
Jackson  v.  State,  131  Ala.  21,  31  So. 
380;  People  v.  Reynolds,  5  Gilm.  1; 
People  v.  Burns,  5  Mich.  114. 

12  Barnes  v.  Supervisors.  51  Miss. 
305;  Ex  parte  Hill,  40  Ala.  121; 
Commonwealth  v.  Painter,  10  Pa. 
St.  214;  Hamilton  v.  Carroll,  82  Md. 
326,  33  Atl.  648. 

13  Caldwell  v.  Barrett,  73  Ga.  604; 
Hammon  v.  Haines,  25  Md.  541,  90 
Am.  Dec.  77;  Commonwealth  v. 
Weller,  14  Bush,  218,  29  Am.  Rep. 
407;  State  v.  Cooke,  24  Minn.  247, 
31  Am.  Rep.  344;  Fell  v.  State,  42 
Md.  71,  20  Am.  Rep.  83;  Locke's 
Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  491,  13  Am.  Rep. 
716;  Boone  v.  State,  12  Tex.  App. 
184;  Groesch  v.  State,  42  Ind.  547; 
Shulherr  v.  Bordeaux,  64  Miss.  59, 
8  So.  201;  Commonwealth  v.  Ben- 
nett, 108  Mass.  27;  Territory  v. 
O'Connor,  5  N.  D.  397,  41  N.  W.  746; 
State  v.  Wilcox,  42  Conn.  364;  State 
v.  Court  Com.  Pleas,  36  N.  J.  L. 
72,  13  Am.  Rep.  422;  Barnes  v. 
Supervisors,  51  Miss.  307;  Alcorn  v. 
Hamer,  38  id.  745;  State  v.  Forkner, 
94  Iowa,  1,  62  N.  W.  683;  State  v. 
Pond,  93  Mo.  606,  6  S.  W.  469;  Ex 


parte  Swan,  96  Mo.  44,  9  S.  W.  10; 
State  v.  Moore,  107  Mo.  78,  16  S.  WY 
937;  State  v.  Wingfield,  115  Mo~  428, 
22  S.  W.  363;  Warrensburg  v.  Mc- 
Hugh,  122  Mo.  649,  27  S.  W.  523; 
-Ex  parte  Bone  Handler,  176  Mo. 
383,  75  S.  W.  920.  In  State  v.  Pond, 
96  Mo.  606,  the  court  says:  "It  was 
the  law  that  authorized  the  vote  to 
be  taken,  and  when  taken  the  law, 
and  not  the  vote,  declared  the  re- 
sult that  should  follow  the  vote. 
The  vote  was  the  means  provided 
to  ascertain  the  will  of  the  people, 
not  as  to  the  passage  of  the  law, 
but  whether  intoxicating  liquors 
should  be  sold  in  their  midst.  If 
the  majority  voted  against  the 
sale,  the  law,  and  not  the  vote,  de- 
clared it  should  not  be  sold.  The- 
vote  sprang  from  the  law,  and  not 
the  law  from  the  vote.  By  their 
vote  the  electors  declared  no  conse- 
quences, prescribed  no  penal  lies 
and  exercised  no  legislative  func- 
tion. The  law  declared  the  conse- 
quences, and  whatever  they  may 
be  they  are  exclusively  the  result 
of  the  legislative  will."    p.  62?. 

14  Town  of  Fox  v.  Town  of  Ken- 
dall, 97  111.  72. 

15  Stone  v.  Charlestown,  114  Mass. 
214. 

16  Bull  v.  Read,  13  Gratt.  78. 

i"  State  v.  Cooley,  65  Minn.  406,. 
68  N.  W.  66. 


V.\i  ii'i  i  \    01    BTAT1   rS8    in    01  NERAL. 

established  and  maintained;18  whether  domestic  animals 
shall  be  permitted  to  run  at  large.19  The  people  locally  in- 
terested may  have  the  option  to  accept  or  reject  a  municipal 
oharter  or  amendatory  acts,-"  or  local  police  law.21 

Acts  giving  such  local  options  have  not  unfrequently 
framed  to  secure  it  by  making  a  new  law  go  into 
effect  or  not  according  to  the  result  of  a  popular  vote. 

In  State  v.  Noyes,w  the  people  in  a  town  meeting  adopted 
a  general  law  to  suppress  bowling  alleys,  and  thereby,  pur- 
suant to  its  provisions,  put  it  locally  in  operation. 

In  Mississippi  an  act  for  local  taxation  was,  by  its  terms, 
suspended,  and  ceased  to  have  effect  by  a  protest  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  legal  voters.23 

By  the  terms  of  a  local  act  of  "Wisconsin  it  was  to  be  void 
unless  the  legal  voters  of  the  city  to  which  it  was  applicable 
should  vote  to  accept  it.  It  was  an  act  to  establish  a  board 
of  public  works.  It  was  held  valid;  that  it  was  a  constitu- 
tional act,  to  take  effect  or  go  into  operation  only  upon  a 
contingency  provided  in  the  law  itself.24 

In  a  Virginia  act  for  local  free  schools  it  was  provided 
that  the  act  should  not  be  carried  into  effect  until  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  the  district  should  approve  it.  It 
was  sustained  as  constitutional.25 

Such  cases  as  Rice  v.  Foster,26  Parker  v.  Commonwealth,27 
Ex  parte  Wall,28  and  Maize  v.  State,29  are  now  exceptional, 

I8  Board  of  Trustees  v.  Board  of  23  Williams  v.  Cammack,  27  Miss. 

I  CaL  571,  34  Pac.  244.  209.  61  Am.  Dec.  508. 

Icomb  v.  Davis,  50  111.  413;  2i  State  v.  O'Neill,  Mayor,  etc.,  24 

Erlinger    v.    Boneau,    51    id.    (J4;  Wis.  149. 

.  v.  Wolf,  14  Iowa,  22a  "Bull  v.  Read,  13  Gratt.  78. 

Mayor,  etc.  v.  Finney,  54  Ga.  -ti4  Harr.  479. 

7:  Wales  v.  Belcher,  3  Pick.  508;  270  Pa.  St.  507,  now  overruled  in 

of  Paterson  v.  Society,  24  N.  Locke's  Appeal,  72  id.  491. 

J.  L.  385;  People  v.  Butte,  4  Mont.  2848  Cal.  279. 

T.  179,  47  Am.  Rep  294  Ind.  342,  substantially  over 

yd  v.  Bryant,  35  Ark.  09,  37  ruled  by  Groesch  v.  State,  42  Ind. 

Am.  Rep  6.  547. 
:.".  LL  279. 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES   IN    GENERAL.  173 

and  are  simply  out  of  harmony  with  the  law  as  generally 
held  throughout  the  country. 

On  the  whole  it  may  perhaps  be  considered  a  sound  con- 
clusion, and  I  think  it  is  supported  by  a  preponderance  of 
authority,  that  whether  an  act  is  general  or  local  the  legis- 
lature may  in  their  wisdom  take  into  consideration  the 
wishes  of  the  public,  and  determine  not  to  impose  a  law  on 
an  unwilling  or  non-consenting  people.  Having  the  power 
to  make  their  laws  conditional  to  take  effect  only  on  the 
happening  of  contingent  events,  what  the  event  shall  be  on 
which  the  taking  effect  of  an  act  shall  depend  is  not  a  judi- 
cial question,  but  wholly  and  absolutely  within  the  discre- 
tion of  the  legislature,  like  the  emergency  which  will  in- 
duce them  to  make  an  act  take  immediate  effect,  and  that 
the  result  of  a  popular  vote  is  a  contingent  event  within 
that  discretion. 

§  103.  Operation  of  law  dependent  on  adoption  by  the 
corporate  authorities. —  A  law  to  establish  municipal 
courts  in  cities  having  a  population  of  less  than  five  thousand 
was  to  take  effect  only  on  its  adoption  by  a  four-fifths  vote 
of  the  common  council.  This  was  held  not  a  delegation  of 
legislative  power.30  The  court  says:  "The  legislature  has 
itself  declared  what  the  law  shall  be  when  it  takes  effect, 
and  also  upon  what  contingency  it  shall  take  effect,  and 
when  that  contingency  happens  it  takes  effect  by  force  of 
the  legislative  will.  This  does  not  amount  to  a  delegation 
of  legislative  power."  So  it  was  held  valid  to  provide  in  a 
general  road  law  that  it  should  not  go  into  effect  in  any 
county  until  recommended  by  the  grand  jury  of  the  county.31 
An  act  extending  the  limits  of  a  town  may  be  made  depend- 
ent upon  acceptance  by  the  mayor  and  commissioners  of  the 
town.3'- 

§  104.  Operation  of  general  law  dependent  on  local 
adoption. —  It  is  common  for  the  legislature  to  pass  general 

30  State  v.  Sullivan,  67  Minn.  379,  32  Manley  v.  Raleigh,  4  Jones  Eq. 
384,  69  N.  W,  1094.  370. 

31  Haney  v.  Bartow  Co.  Com'rs, 
91  Ga.  770,  18  S.  E.  28. 


17  1  \  ai  mm  H    OF   BTi  O  us    IN    (.1  mi:  LL. 

laws,  applicable  to  the  whole  state,  with  a  provision  that 
shall  operate  only  in  Buoh  localities  as  shall  adopt  them 
ipular  vote  or  others  ise.   Such  provisions  for  the  opera- 
tion oi  the  act  are  valid  and  do  not  constitute  a  delegation 
of  legislative  power."    The  court  of  errors  and  appeals  of 
Jersey,  in  passing  on  such  a  law,  says:  "Whenever  a 
itive  art,  no  matter  how  specific  or  how  general  it  be, 
it  within  the  power  of  any  political  district  to  exercise 
a  function  of  local  government,  such  legislation  is  a  com- 
plete and  perfect  declaration  of  the  legislative  will,  and  is 
not  obnoxious  to  the  charge  that  it  delegates  the  law-mak- 
>wer."  ' 
But  in  Massachusetts  it  is  held  that  a  law  giving  women 
the  right  to  vote  at  town  and  city  elections  may  not  be 
d  to  operate  only  in  such  towns  and  cities  as  may  adopt 
it  by  popular  vote.1'   The  court  says:  "  It  is  certainly  a  diffi- 
cult question  to  determine  how  far  the  principle  of  local 
0  can  be  earned,  and  to  what  subjects  it  can  be  applied. 
An  act  granting  to  women  the  right  to  vote  in  town  and 
city  elections  does  not  relate  to  the  powers  of  towns  and 
.  which  in  some  respects  may  well  be  different  in  differ- 
ent towns  and  cities  on  account  of  the  number,  wealth  and 
pursuits  of  the  inhabitants.     Such  an  act  relates  solely  to 
the  persons  who  should  be  invested  with  a  share  of  political 
power.     Whether  women  should  be  permitted  to  vote  in 
town  and  city  elections  seems  to  us  is  matter  of  general  and 
not  of  local  concern.     There  is  nothing  in  the  history  of 
sachusetts  which  tends  to  show  that  the  right  to  vote 
in  towns  and  cities  in  town  and  city  affairs  has  ever  been 

yd  v.  Bryant,  35  Ark.  00,  37  87  111.  524;  Slireve   v.   Cicero,   129 

Am.  u"  p.  6;  In  re  Petition  of  Cleve-  HL  220,  21  N.  E.  815. 

land,  52  N.  J.  L.   183,  19   Atl.   17,  7  34  In  re  Petition  of  Cleveland,  52 

1-  l;.  A.  431;  De  Hart  v.  Atlantic  N.  J.  L.  188,  190,  19  AtL  17,  7  L.  R. 

52  N.  J.   L  586,  41   Atl.   687;  A.  431. 

reed  on  another  point,  63  ^Opinion    of    the  Justices,  100 

.  Mass.  586,  30  N.  E.  488,  23  L.  R.  A. 

:   Bl    N.   W.  860,  113. 
i:.  A.    1 11;  Martin  v.   People, 


VALIDITY    OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  175 

regarded  as  a  matter  of  police  regulation  or  of  merely  local 
interest;  or  as  a  right  which  might  be  granted  or  withheld 
by  a  licensing  board.  It  always  has  been  determined  by 
the  legislature  by  a  general  law,  in  force  uniformly  through- 
out the  commonwealth." 

§  105.  Adoption  must  be  co-extensive  with  territory 
affected  by  the  law. —  The  principle  upon  which  it  is  held 
competent  for  the  legislature  to  leave  it  to  the  people  of  a 
locality  to  determine  whether  they  will  be  governed  by  a 
particular  law  or  not,  precludes  the  right  to  leave  it  to  one 
locality  to  determine  whether  a  given  law  shall  operate  in 
another  locality.  Thus  a  statute  of  Maryland  forbade  the 
taking  of  oysters  by  scoop  or  dredge  within  the  waters  of 
Somerset  county,  but  was  not  to  go  into  effect  unless  adopted 
by  popular  vote  in  certain  election  precincts  in  that  county. 
The  court  held  that  the  law  affected  all  the  people  of  the 
state,  and  that  it  was  invalid  for  the  reason  that  "  it  would 
be  against  every  principle  of  sound  legislative  policy,  and 
repugnant  to  the  maxim  which  forbids  the  delegation  of 
legislative  power,  to  hold  that  it  is  competent  for  the  leg- 
islature to  make  the  operation  of  a  statute  thus  affecting  the 
common  right  of  the  people  of  the  whole  state,  depend  upon 
the  result  of  a  popular  vote  of  persons  residing  within  three 
or  four  or  any  given  number  of  election  districts  of  a 
county.  We  have  no  disposition  to  extend  the  exceptions 
to  the  general  maxim,  which  wisely  forbids  the  delegation 
of  legislative  power,  beyond  the  cases  to  which  we  have  re- 
ferred, and  the  principles  on  which  they  are  based."36 

§  10().  Municipalities  may  not  be  authorized  to  make  or 
amend  their  charters. —  A  statute  of  Michigan  provided 
that,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  mayor  of  Detroit  and 
the  approval  of  the  council  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  or  on  peti- 
tion of  five  thousand  electors  of  the  city,  it  should  be  the 
duty  of  the  council  to  submit  to  popular  vote  any  amend- 
ment or  amendments  to  the  charter  of  the  city  so  recom- 

36  Bradshaw  v.  Lankford,  73  Md.  428,  21  Atl.  66,  25  Am.  St  Rep.  602, 
11  L.  R.  A.  582. 


1  7G  VALIDIT1    0]     BTAT1   us    in    QBN]  RAL. 

mended  or  petitioned  for,  and  if  the  same  were  adopted  by 
a  majority  vote  they  should  bo  effective  as  such  amend- 
ments. This  was  hold  to  bo  a  char  delegation  of  the  legis 
Lative  power. 7 

§  107.  Other  decisions  on  the  validity  of  statutes.— A 
law  will  not  be  declared  invalid  on  the  admission  or  con- 
a  «.f  counsel,  either  as  to  matters  of  ('act  or  matters  of 
law,  t'orthe  rights  of  many  others,  perhaps  of  all  the  people 
of  tie-  state,  may  depend  upon  or  be  affected  by  the  ques- 
tion. i  A  law  is  to  be  tested,  not  by  what  has  been  done 
under  it,  but  by  what  may  be  done  under  it.39  When  a  sec- 
tion of  a  statute  is  invalid  because  not  within  the  title,  the 
incorporation  of  the  section  in  a  code  or  revision  makes  it 
valid  from  the  adoption  of  such  code  or  revision.40  So  the 
approval  of  a  territorial  act  by  congress  validates  a  section 
of  the  act  void  for  the  same  reason.41  Where  a  local  law  is 
invalid  when  passed  because  in  coniliet  with  a  general  law, 
it  is  not  made  valid  by  a  subsequent  amendment  of  the  gen- 
eral law  so  as  to  avoid  such  conflict.42  So  if  an  act  is  invalid 
when  passed  because  in  conflict  with  the  constitution,  it  is 
not  made  valid  by  a  change  of  the  constitution  which  does 
away  with  the  coniliet.43  And  when  an  ordinance  is  void 
because  in  conflict  with  a  statute,  the  repeal  of  the  statute 
does  not  validate  the  ordinance.44  The  failure  of  an  editor, 
authorized  to  make  a  compilation  of  the  general  statutes  of 

37  Elliott  v.Detroit,  121  Mich.  Gil,  533,  40  S.   E.   707;    McFarland  v. 

W.    $20.  Donaldson,   113  Ga.  567,  41  S.   E. 

■dlington  v.  Williams,  98  Ga.  1000;  Newgass  v.  Atlantic  &  D.  Ry. 

:7  S.  E.  183;  Jones  v.  Madison  Co.,  50  Fed.  676. 

Countv,  7-i  Miss.  777, 18  So.  87;  State  41  Karasek  v.  Peier,  22  Wash.  419, 

v.  Aloe,  152  Mo.  4G6,  54  S.  W.  494;  61  Pac.  33,  50  L.  R.  A.  345. 

State  v.  Withrow,  154  Mo.  897,  55  «  Jones  v.  McCaskill,  112  Ga.  458, 

S.  W.  460;  Rodman-Heath  Cotton  37  S.  E.  724. 

Mills  v.  Waxbaw,  130  N.  C.  293,  41  "State  v.  Tufly,  20  Nev.  427,  22 

S.  e.  Pac.    1054,   19    Am.   St.   Rep.   374; 

3J  Minneapolis    Brewing    Co.    v.  Comstock  Mill  &  Min.  Co.  v.  Allen, 

livray,  104  Fed.  258,  269.  21  Nev.  325,  31  Pac.  434. 

"Parka  v.  State,  110  Ga  760,  36  "Erie  v.  Brady,  150  Pa.  St.  462, 

Daniel    v.  State,   114  Ga.  24  Atl.  641. 


VALIDITY   OF    STATUTES    IN    GENERAL.  177 

a  state,  to  include  a  statute  in  such  compilation,  does  not 
affect  its  validity  or  binding  force.45  The  validity  of  a  stat- 
ute must  be  determined  from  the  statute  itself  and  facts  of 
which  the  court  will  take  judicial  notice.46  A  change  or 
amendment  of  the  constitution  imposing  new  limitations 
upon  the  legislature  does  not  affect  existing  laws.47  An  act 
of  1890  authorized  a  city  to  issue  bonds  for  the  construction 
of  a  sewerage  system,  provided  the  issue  was  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  electors  of  the  city  at  an  election  held  for 
that  purpose,  on  the  petition  of  one-third  of  the  real  estate 
owners  of  the  city.  The  constitution  of  1895  required  that 
the  petition  for  an  election  in  such  cases  should  be  signed 
by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  of  the  city  as  shown  by  its 
tax  books.  This  was  held  not  to  nullify  the  prior  law,  but 
in  effect  to  amend  it  in  that  respect,  and  if  the  constitution 
was  complied  with  the  power  could  be  exercised.48  "In 
considering  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute,  courts  will 
take  judicial  notice  of  all  facts  relevant  to  the  question."49 
One  not  affected  by  the  invalidity  of  a  statute  cannot  raise 
the  question  of  its  validity.59 

§  108.  Acts  done  under  an  invalid  statute. —  It  has 
been  said  that  "an  unconstitutional  act  is  not  a  law;  it  con- 
fers no  rights;  it  imposes  no  duties;  it  affords  no  protec- 
tion ;  it  creates  no  office;  it  is,  in  legal  contemplation,  as  in- 
operative as  though  it  had  never  been  passed."51    This  is 

«  Fenton  v.  Yule.  27  Neb.  758,  43  320,  30  Pac.  544;  Topeka  v.  Gillett, 

N.  W.  1140.  32  Kan.  431,  4  Pac.  800;  State  v. 

46  Tenement  House  Department  Ames,  87  Minn.  23,  91  N.  W.  18. 

v.  Moeschen,  89  App.  Div.  526.  so  Shebane    v.   Bailey,   110    Ala. 

47Sayers  v.  Wilmington  &  N.  R.  308,  20  So.  359;  Jones  v.  Black,  48 

R.  Co.,  3  Penn.  (Del.)  249;  State  v.  Ala.  510;  Dejarnette  v.  Haynes,  23 

Dorr,  82  Me.  212,  19  Atl.  171;  Black  Miss.  600;  State  v.  Gerbardt,  145 

River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Holway,  87  Wis.  Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  469;  Williamson 

584,  59  N.  W.  126.  v.  Carleton,  51  Ma  449;  State  v. 

«  Cleveland   v.  Sparteuburg,  54  Stevenson,  18  Neb.  416.  25  N.  W. 

S.  C.  83,  31  S.  E.  871.  585;    Turnquist    v.    Cass    County 

«  State  v.  Westfall,  85  Minn.  437,  Drainage  Coni'rs,  11  N.   D.  514,  92 

89  N.  W.  175,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  571;  N.  W.  852. 

Green  v.   Fresno  County,  95  Cal.  61  Norton  v.  Sbelby  County,  118 
12 


178  \  a  I  ii'l  i  v    OF   BTATUTEf     in    GENERAL 

undoubtedly  the  logic  of  the  situation,  but  logio  docs  not 
always  hold  in  legal  questions.    Pursuant  to  an  act  of  tho 

ature,  tho  state  of  Washington  purchased  and  paid  for 
a  tract  of  land  for  an  insane  asylum  and  received  a  deed  of 
the  same.  Subsequently  tho  act  was  declared  to  bo  uncon- 
stitutional. The  state  then  brought  a  suit  to  quiet  title  to 
the  land,  and  the  vendors  set  up  that  the  deed  was  void  and 
claimed  a  decree  accordingly.  The  court  ruled  against  the 
defense,  holding  that  the  vendors  could  not  keep  the  money 
and  have  the  land.  It  was  intimated  that  the  deed  might 
be  avoided  in  a  proper  proceeding,  and  on  tender  of  the 
purchase-money.52  The  court  says:  "  Nor  does  the  fact  that 
the  act  of  1S03  was  declared  unconstitutional  and  void, 
after  the  purchase  made  under  it  had  been  consummated  and 
the  title  vested  in  the  state,  render  the  deed  a  nullity.  The 
purchase  was  accomplished  under  color  of  lawful  authorit}^ 
and  at  a  time  when  the  law  was  presumptively  valid,  and 
therefore  must  be  regarded  as  having  been  lawfully  made." 
The  city  of  Philadelphia  laid  out  a  street  under  a  statute 
afterwards  declared  void.53  Before  the  decision  gas  pipes 
were  laid  in  the  street  by  permission  of  the  city.  After  the 
decision  the  owner  of  the  fee  brought  suit  to  enjoin  the 

U.  S.  425,  441,  G  S.  C.  Rep.  1121,  30  the  construction  of  drainsand  sew- 

LuEd.178.     To  same  effect:  Boales  ers,  the  erection  of  municipal  build- 

v.  Ferguson,  55  Neb.  505,  70  N.  W.  ings,  the   introduction  of  gas  and 

18;  Finders  v.  Bodle,  58  Neb.  57,  78  water    works,    arises    until    years 

N.  W.  480;   Wyandotte  Co.  Com'rs  have  elapsed  after  such  work  is 

v.    Kansas  City,  etc.    R.  R.    Co.,  5  done,  it  could  not  be  tolerated  that 

Kan.  App.  43,  46  Pac.  1013,  47  Pac.  because  the   power  is   ultimately 

ooley,  Const.  Lim.,  p.  222  and  held  to  have  been  in  excess  of  the 

cases  cited,  lawful  authority  of  the  city,  that 

ite  v.  Blize,  37  Ore.  404,  01  such  streets  must   be  closed  and 

735.  abandoned,    or    the    sewers    and 

ing   v.  Philadelphia  Co.,  154  drains  destroyed,  or  the  gas  and 

Pa  St.  160,  20  Atl.  308,  35  Am.  St.  water  works  closed,  or  the  munici- 

317,  2  I*  R.  A.  141.     The  court  pal   buildings  torn    down.      Such 

f-ay-:   "  If  no  question  of  the  consti-  municipal  works  having  been  done 

tutional  power  of  a  city  to  do  mu-  under  color  of  lawful   authority, 

nicipal  work,  such  as  the  opening  when  no  question  as  to  the  validity 

or  grading  and  paving  of  streets,  of  the  authority  was  raised,  must 


VALIDITY   OF   STATUTES    IN   GENERAL. 


179 


further  maintenance  of  the  pipes,  and  for  damages.  The 
court  held  that  what  had  been  done  under  the  act  before  it 
was  declared  void  should  be  deemed  valid,  and  dismissed 
the  bill. 


be  regarded  as  lawfully  done.  The 
opening  of  a  street  ordinarily  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  erection  of  buildings 
on  both  sides,  by  the  laying  of  gas 
and  water  pipes,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  sewers.  If,  after  all  this 
has  taken  place,  it  is  discovered, 
and  judicially  decided,  that  the  law 


under  which  the  municipal  author- 
ities have  acted  in  the  premises  is 
unconstitutional,  surely  it  cannot 
be  that  all  the  improvements, 
works  and  buildings,  carried  on 
and  constructed  under  apparent 
legal  authority,  must  be  abandoned 
or  destroyed." 


CHAPTER  IV. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  REQUIREMENT  THAT  NO  ACT  EMBRACE 
MORE  THAN  ONE  SUBJECT  AND  TUAT  IT  BE  EXPRESSED 
IN  THE  TITLE 

g  109  (76).  Substantial  agreement  of  constitutional 
provisions  —  Exceptions. — In  the  constitutions  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  states  are  provisions  relating  to  the  title 
and  singleness  of  the  subject-matter  of  legislative  acts.  It 
is  not  uniformly  expressed  in  the  same  words,  but  it  is  in 
substance  the  same — that  no  law  shall  embrace  more  than 
one  subject,  which  shall  be  expressed  in  the  title.1 


(Alabama  — 1865:  Art.  4,  sea  2. 
Each   law  shall  embrace  but 

one  subject,  which  shall  be  de- 
scribed in  the  title. 

1868:  Each  law  shall  contain 
but  one  subject,  which  shall  be 
clearly  expressed  in  the  titla 
Art  4.  sec.  2. 

1875,  adds:  Except  general  ap- 
propriation bills,  general  reve- 
nue bill,  and  bills  adopting  a 
code,  digest  or  revision  of  stat- 
utes. 
California— 1849:  Art  4,  sec.  25. 
Every  law  enacted  by  the  legis- 
lature shall  express  but  one 
object,  and  that  shall  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title. 

1879:  Art  4.  sec  24.  Every  act 
shall  embrace  but  one  subject, 
which  subject  shall  be  ex- 
prooood  in  its  title.  But  if  any 
subject  shall  be  embraced  in 
an  act  which  shall  not  be  ex- 
d  in  the  title,  such  act 


shall  be  void  only  as  to  so 
much  thereof  as  shall  not  be 
expressed  in  its  title.  No  law 
shall  be  revised  or  amended  by 
reference  to  its  title;  but  in 
such  case  the  act  revised  or 
section  amended  shall  be  re- 
enacted  and  published  at 
length  as  revised  or  amended. 

Colorado:  Art  5,  sea  21.  No  bill, 
except  general  appropriation 
bills,  shall  be  passed  contain- 
ing more  than  one  subject, 
which  shall  be  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  its  title;  but  if  any 
subject  shall  be  embraced  in 
any  act  which  shall  not  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  such  act 
shall  be  void  only  as  to  so 
much  thereof  as  shall  not  be  so 
expressed. 

Florida  — 1868:  Art  4,  sec.  14. 
Each  law  enacted  in  the  legis- 
lature shall  embrace  hut  one 
subject,  and   matter  properly 


TITLE    OF   ACTS. 


181 


In  the  constitutions  of  New  York,  "Wisconsin,  and  in  the 
Illinois  constitution  of  1848,  the  provision  is  confined  to  pri- 
vate and  local  laws.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  several  the 
injunction  is  against  embracing  more  than  one  "object"  in 
a  bill.     In  many  instances  the  subject  or  object  is  required 


connected  therewith,  which 
subject  shall  be  briefly  ex- 
pressed in  the  title. 

Georgia — 186-"):  Nor  shall  any 
law  or  ordinance  pass  which 
refers  to  more  than  one  sub- 
ject-matter or  contains  matter 
different  from  what  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  title  thereof. 
Art.  2,  sec.  4. 

Idaho:  Art.  3,  sec.  16.  Every  act 
shall  embrace  but  one  subject 
and  matters  properly  con- 
nected therewith,  which  sub- 
ject shall  be  expressed  in  the 
title;  but  if  any  subject  shall 
be  embraced  in  an  act  which 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the 
title,  such  act  shall  be  void 
only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as 
shall  not  be  embraced  in  the 
title. 

Illinois— 1848:  Art.  3,  sec.  23.  No 
private  or  local  law  which  may 
be  passed  by  the  general  assem- 
bly shall  embrace  more  than 
one  subject,  and  that  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  title. 
1870:  Art.  4,  sec.  13.  No  act  here- 
after passed  shall  embrace 
more  than  one  subject,  and 
that  shall  be  expressed  in  the 
title;  but  if  any  subject  shall 
be  embraced  in  an  act  which 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the 
title,  etc.  (as  in  Colorado). 

Indiana— 1851:  Art.  4,  sec.  19. 
Every  act  shall  embrace  but 
one  subject  and  matters  prop- 


erly connected  therewith, 
which  subject  shall  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title;  but  if  any 
subject  shall  be  embraced  in 
an  act,  etc.  (as  in  Colorado  con- 
stitution). 

Iowa  —  1846:  Art  3,  sec.  26.  Same 
as  in  Indiana. 
1857:  Art  3,  sec.  29.    Same  as  in 
Indiana. 

Kansas— 1855:  Art.  4,  sec.  14.  Every 
act  shall  contain  but  one  sub- 
ject, which  shall  be  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  its  title. 
1857:  Art.  5,  sec.  20.  Every  law 
enacted  by  the  legislature  shall 
embrace  but  one  subject,  and 
that  shall  be  expressed  in  its 
title,  and  any  extraneous  mat- 
ter introduced  in  a  bill  which 
shall  pass  shall  be  void. 
1859:  Art  2,  sec.  16.  No  bill 
shall  contain  more  than  one 
subject,  which  shall  be  clearly 
expressed  in  its  title. 

Kentucky  — 1850:  No  law  shall  re- 
late to  more  than  one  subject, 
and  that  shall  be  expressed  in 
the  title.  Art.  2,  sec.  37. 
1891:  Sec.  51.  No  law  enacted 
by  the  general  assembly  shall 
relate  to  more  than  one  sub- 
ject, and  that  shall  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  and  no  law 
shall  be  revised,  amended,  or 
the  provisions  thereof  ex- 
tended or  conferred  by  refer- 
ence to  its  title  only,  but  so 
much    thereof    as  is    revised, 


IS2 


TITLE    01    ACTS. 


to  be  '  nd  In  one  ""briefly"  expressed  in  the  title. 

The  ;  Q  thai  only  one  subjectshall  be  embraced  in  an 

aot  is  in  >oww  states  qualified  by  adding  "  and  matters  prop- 
erlv  oonneoted  therewith." 


amended,  extended  or  confer- 
red,   shall    be     e-enacted  and 
published  at  length. 
Louisiana—  Every  law  enacted  by 
the  legislature  shall  embrace 
but  one  object,  and  that  shall 
be  expressed  in  the  title. 
1852:  Art.  115. 
1864:  Art.  118. 

1868:  Art.  114.     Every  law  shall 
exoress  its  object  or  objects  in 
its  title. 
Ear]  land  —  1851:    Art  3.  sec.  17. 
Every  law  enacted  by  the  legis- 
lature shall  embrace  but  one 
6ubject,  and  that  shall  be  de- 
■  ed  in  the  title. 
1 86  I:  Ait.  3,  sec.  28;  art  3,  sec.  29. 
Michigan— 1850:  Art  4,  sec.  20. 
No  law   shall    embrace  more 
than  one  object,  which  shall 
be  ex |  ressed  in  its  title. 
Minnesota— 1857:  Art  4,  sec.  27. 
No  law    shall   embrace    more 
than  one  subject,  which  shall 
be  expressed  in  its  title. 
Missouri  —  ls<;.">:  Art.  4,  sec.  32.  No 
law  enacted  by  the  general  as- 
ily   shall    relate   to  more 
than    one    subject,   and    that 
shall  be  expressed  in  the  title; 
but  'if  any  subject  embraced 
in  an  act  be  not  expressed  in 
the    title,   such  act    shall    be 
void  only  as  to  so  much  thereof 
not  so  expressed.   State  v. 
Miller,  45  Mo.  405. 
Montana  —  Art.    5,   sec.    23.     No 
bill,  except  general  appropria- 


tion bills,  and  hills  for  the  cod- 
ification and  general  revision 
of  the  laws,  shall  bo  passed  con- 
taining more  than  one  subject, 
which  shall  be  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  its  title;  but,  if  anj' 
subject  shall  be  embraced  in 
any  act  which  shall  not  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  such  shall 
be  void  only  as  to  so  much 
thereof  as  shall  not  be  so  ex- 
pressed." 

Nebraska— 1866:  Art  2,  see  19. 
No  bill  shall  contain  more  than 
one  subject,  which  shall  be 
clearly  expressed  in  its  title." 
1875:  Art.  3,  sec.  11.  No  bill 
shall  contain  more  than  one 
subject,  and  the  same  shall  be 
clearly  expressed  in  its  title. 

Nevada— 1S<>4:  Art.  4,  sec.  17. 
Each  law  enacted  by  the  leg- 
islature shall  embrace  but  one 
subject  and  matter  properly 
connected  therewith,  which 
subject  shall  be  briefly  ex- 
pressed in  the  title. 

New  Jersey—  1S44:  Art  4,  sec.  7. 
To  avoid  improper  influences 
which  may  result  from  inter- 
mixing in  one  and  the  same 
act  such  things  as  have  no 
proper  relation  to  each  other, 
every  law  shall  embrace  but 
one  object,  and  that  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  title. 

New  York—  1846:  Art  3,  sec.  1G. 
No  private  or  local  bill  which 
may  be  passed  by  the  legisla- 


TITLE   OF    ACTS. 


183 


§  110(77).  The  former  constitution  of  Georgia  merely 
inhibited  the  passage  of  any  law  containing  matter  different 
from  that  expressed  in  its  title.  Under  it,  according  to  the 
rulings  and  practice  in  that  state,  when  there  was  added  to 


ture  shall  embrace  more  than 
one  subject,  and  that  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  title. 
Ohio  — 1851:    Art.  2,  sec.  16.    No 
bill  shall  contain  more  than 
one  subject,  which    shall    be 
clearly  expressed  in  its  title. 
Oregon  — 1857:      Art.   4,   sec.   20. 
Every  act  shall  embrace  but 
one  subject  and  matters  prop- 
erly     connected      therewith, 
which    subject    shall    be   ex- 
pressed in  the  title.  But  if  any 
subject  shall  be  embraced  in 
an  act  which  shall  not  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  such  act 
shall  be  void    only  as    to    so 
much  thereof  as  shall  not  be 
expressed  in  the  title. 
Pennsylvania  — Added  in  1864  by 
amendment  to  constitution  of 
1838,  art.  2,  sec.  3.  No  bill  shall 
be  passed  by  the  legislature 
containing  more  than  one  sub- 
ject, which  shall  be  expressed 
in  the  title,  except  appropria- 
tion bills. 
1873:    Art.  3,  sec.  3.  No  bill,  ex- 
cept     general     appropriation 
bills,  shall  be  passed  contain- 
ing  more  than    one    subject, 
which    shall    be    clearly    ex- 
pressed in  its  title. 
South  Carolina  —  Every  act  or  res- 
olution having  the  force  of  law 
shall  relate  to  but  one  subject, 
and  that  shall  be  expressed  in 
the  title. 
18G8:  Art.  2,  sec.  20. 


Texas— 1 845:  Art.  7,  sec.  24  Every 
law  enacted  by  the  legislature 
shall  embrace  but  one  object, 
and  that  shall  be  expressed  in 
the  title. 
I860:  Art.  7,  sec.  24. 
18G8:  Art.  12,  sec.  17. 
1876:  Art.  3,  sec.  35.   No  bill  (ex- 
cept general  appropriation  bills 
which  may  embrace  the  vari- 
ous subjects  and  accounts  for 
and  on  account  of  which  mon- 
eys are  appropriated)  shall  con- 
tain more  than  one  subject, 
which  shall  be  expressed  in  its 
title.     But  if  any  subject  shall 
be  embraced  in  an  act  which 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the 
title,  such  act  shall  be  void 
only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as 
shall  not  be  so  expressed. 
Tennessee  — 1870:  Art.  2,  sec.  17. 
No   bill    shall   become  a   law 
which  embraces  more  than  one 
subject;  that  subject  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title. 
Virginia  — 1850:  Art.   4,  sec.  16. 
No    law  shall   embrace  more 
than  one  object,  which  shall 
be  expressed  in  its  title. 
1804:  Art.  4,  sec.  16. 
1870:  Art.  5,  sec.  15. 
West  Virginia— 18G1-18G3:  Same 
as  in  Virginia. 
1872:  Art.  6,  sec.  30.  No  act  here- 
after   passed    shall    embrace 
more  than  one  object,  and  that 
shall  be  expressed  in  the  title. 
But  if  any  object  shall  be  em- 


1  v  I  11  n  E   OF   acts. 

the  words  in  tin1  title  the  phrase  "and  for  other  purposes," 
\.>;in  unlimited  capacity  to  the  body  of  the  act.8  Tho 
at  constitution,  however,  prohibits  the  passage  of  any 

law  which  refers  to  more  than  one  subject-matter  or  con- 
tains matter  different  from  what  is  expressed  in  the  title. 

§  111  (78).  The  mischief  intended  to  be  remedied — The 
purpose  of  t  hese  rest  rictive  provisions. —  In  the  construc- 
tion and  application  of  this  constitutional  restriction  the 
courts  have  kept  steadily  in  view  the  correction  of  the  mis- 
chief against  which  it  was  aimed.  The  object  is  to  prevent 
the  practice,  which  was  common  in  all  legislative  bodies 
where  no  such  restriction  existed,  of  embracing  in  the  same 
bill  incongruous  matters  having  no  relation  to  each  other, 
or  to  the  subject  specified  in  the  title,  by  which  measures 
often  adopted  without  attracting  attention.3  Such 
distinct  subjects  represented  diverse  interests,  and  were 
combined  in  order  to  unite  the  members  of  the  legislature 
who  favored  either  in  support  of  all.4  These  combinations 
were  corruptive  of  the  legislature  and  dangerous  to  the 
state.5  Such  omnibus  bills  sometimes  included  more  than 
a  hundred  sections  on  as  many  dilferent  subjects,  with  a 
title  appropriate  to  the  first  section,  "and  for  other  pur- 
poses."6 

The  failure  to  indicate  in  the  title  of  the  bill  the  object 

braced  in  an  art  which  is  not  i ri £_c   more    than   one    subject, 

so  expressed,  the  act  shall  be  which  shall  beclearly  expressed 

void  only  as  to  so  much  thereof  in  the  title. 

as  shall  not  be  so  expn se  -  Martin  v.  Broach,  6  Ga,  21,  50 

Wisconsin  —  1848:   Art.  4,  sec.  18.  Am.  Dec.  30G;  Mayor,  etc.  v.  State, 

private  or  local  bill,  which  4  Ga.  26;   Board  of  Education    v. 

may  be  passed  by  the  legisla-  Barlow,  49  Ga.  241;  Black  v.  Cohen, 

ture,  shall  embrace  more  than  52  Ga.  G2G. 

one  subject,  and  that  shall  bo  3  Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S. 

ressed  in  the  title.  378,  36  L  Ed.  1090. 

Wyoming—  Art.  3,  sec.  21.    No  bill  4  Shields  v.  Bennett,8  W.  Va.  83; 

ral    appropriation  Town  of  Fishkill  v.  F.  &  B.  Co.,  22 

bills  and  bills  for  the  co  Lifica-  Barb.  G34. 

tion  and  general  revision  <>f  1 1 >e  B  People  v.  Mahaney,  13  Mich.  494. 

laws  shall  be  passed,  contain-  G  Yeager  v.  Weaver,  G4  Pa.  St.  425. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


185 


intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the  legislation  often  resulted 
in  members  voting  ignorantly  for  measures  which  they 
would  not  knowingly  have  approved.  And  not  only  were 
legislators  thus  misled,  but  the  public  also;  so  that  legis- 
lative provisions  were  stealthily  pushed  through  in  the  clos- 
ing hours  of  a  session,  which,  having  no  merit  to  commend 
them,  would  have  been  made  odious  by  popular  discussion 
and  remonstrance  if  their  pendency  had  been  seasonably 
announced.  The  constitutional  clause  under  discussion  is 
intended  to  correct  these  evils;  to  prevent  such  corrupting 
aggregations  of  incongruous  measures  by  confining  each  act 
to  one  subject  or  object;  to  prevent  surprise  and  inadvert- 
ence by  requiring  that  subject  or  object  to  be  expressed  in 
the  title.7 


7  Montgomery,  etc.  Ass'n  v.  Rob- 
inson, 69  Ala.  413;  Stein  v.  Leeper, 
78  Ala.  517;  Ballentyne  v.  Wicker- 
sham,  75  Ala.  539;  City  Council  v. 
National  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  108  Ala. 
336,  18  So.  816;  Lindsay  v.  IT.  S.  Sav- 
ings &  L.  Ass'n,  120  Ala.  156,  24  So. 
171,  42  L.  R,  A.  783:  Mobile  Trans- 
portation Co.  v.  Mobile,  128  Ala. 
335,  30  So.  645,  86  Am.  St.  Rep.  143; 
Ex  parte  Lid  dell,  93  Cal.  633,  29  Pac. 
251;  People  v.  Fleming,  7  Colo.  230, 
3  Pac.  70;  Catron  v.  County  Coru'rs, 
18  Colo.  553,  33  Pac.  513;  State  v. 
Green,  36  Fla.  154,  18  So.  334; 
Brieswick  v.  Mayor,  51  Ga.  639; 
Blair  v.  State,  90  Ga.  326,  17  S.  EL 
96,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  206;  People  v. 
Institute,  71  111.  229;  Robinson  v. 
Skipworth,  23  Ind.  312;  Grubbs  v. 
State,  24  Ind.  295;  Henderson  v. 
London  &  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  135 
Ind.  23,  34  N.  E.  565, 41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
410,  20  L.  R  A.  827;  State  v.  Ger- 
hard t,  145  Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  469; 
State  v.  County  Judge,  2  Iowa,  282; 
State  v.  Commonwealth,  8  Bush, 


108;  Rogers  v.  Jacob,  88  Ky.  502, 
11  S.  W.  513;  Conley  v.  Common- 
wealth, 98  Ky.  125,  32  S.  W.  285; 
Walker  v.  Caldwell,  4  La.  Ann.  298; 
Davis  v.  State,  7  MA  160;  Keller  v. 
State,  11  Md.  531,  69  Am.  Dec.  226; 
Parkinson  v.  State,  14  Md.  184,  74 
Am.  Dec.  522;  Mayor  v.  State,  30 
Md.  118;  County  Com'rs  v.  Frank- 
lin R.  R.  Co.,  34  MA  163;  McGrath 
v.  State,  46  Md.  633;  County  Com'rs 
v.  Meek  ins,  50  Md.  39;  State  v.  Nor- 
ris,  70  MA  91,  16  Atl.  445;  People  v. 
Mahaney,  13  Mich.  494;  Ryerson  v. 
Utley,  16  Mich.  269;  Johnson  v. 
Harrison,  47  Minn.  575,  50  N.  W. 
923,  28  Am.  St.  Rep.  382;  Winters  v. 
Dulnth,  82  Minn.  127,  84  N.  W.  788; 
St.  Louis  v.  Teifel,  42  Mo.  578;  State 
v.  Ranson,  73  Mo.  78;  State-v.  Mil- 
ler, 100  Mo.  439,  13  S.W.  677;  Hotch- 
kiss  v.  Marion,  12  Mont.  218,  29  Pac. 
821;  State  v.  Anaconda  Copper 
Min.  Co.,  23  Mont.  498,  59  Pac.  854: 
White  v.  Lincoln,  5  Neb.  505 ;  Kansas 
City,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Frey.  30  Neb.  790, 
47  N.  W.  87;  Van  Horn  v.  State,  46 


186 


rill  i:   OF    a.  is. 


The  Bupreme  court  »>f  Minnesota,  in  speaking  of  the  pro- 
.  says:  (( Its  purposes  are  two:  first,  to  prevent  what  is 
called  'logrolling  legislation'  or  '  omnibus  bills,'  by  which  a 
Dumber  of  different  and  disconnected  subjects  are  united  in 
one  bill,  and  then  carried  through  by  a  combination  of  in- 
terests; second,  to  prevent  surprise  and  fraud  upon  the  peo- 
and  the  legislature  by  including  provisions  in   a  bill 
36  title  gives  no  intimation  of  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
i  legislation,  or  of  the  interests  likely  to  be  affected  by 
its  becoming  a  law;  and,  in  deciding  whether  an  act  is  ob- 
noxious to  this  provision  of  the  constitution,  a  very  good  test 
to  apply  is  whether  it  is  within  the  mischiefs  intended  to 
be  remedied."8 

The  supreme  court  of  Colorado,  after  referring  to  the 
objects  of  the  provision,  in  similar  language  says:  "So  far 
as  the  first  of  the  above  evils  is  concerned,  unfortunately, 
neither  this  nor  any  other  provision  yet  devised  upon  the 
subject  has  produced  the  desired  result.     Even  a  casual  in- 


Neb,  63,  64  N.  W.  865;  Cooperrider 
v.  State.  40  Nob.  84.  01  X.  W.  372; 
State  v.  Tibbets,  52  Neb.  228,  71  N. 
\V.  990,  66  Am.  St,  Rep.  492;  Ne- 

:a  L.  &  B.  Ass'n  v.  Perkins,  61 
Neb.  25 1,  85  X.  W.  07 ;  State  v.  Silver, 
0  Xev.  227 ;  State  v.  Union,  33  X.  J.  L. 
350;GifTord  v.  N.J.  R.R.C-0.,  2Stookt, 
1 72;  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  8  N. 
Y.241;  Harrisv.Peop1e,59N.Y.602; 
Fi^l.kill  v.  F.  &  13.  Co.,  22  Barb.  63  I : 
v.  Woodmansee,  1  N.  D.  246, 

.  W.970,  11  L.  R.  A.  420;  Power 
v.  Bitching,  10  X.  D.  254,  86  N.W. 
7;7;  Clemensen  v.  Peterson,  35 
Ore.  47,  50  Pac.  1015;  Yeager  v. 
Weaver,  04  Pa,  St.  427;  Dorsey's 
Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  192;  Common- 
wealth v.  Samuels,  104  Pa.  St. 
I  \il.  909;  <  uinmonwealth 
v.    Severus,    101    Pa    St.    462,    80 


Atl.  391 ;  In  re  Sugar  Notch  Borough, 
192  Pa.  St.  349,  43  Atl.  985;  State  v. 
Morgan,  2  S.  D.  32,  48  N.  W.  314; 
State  v.  Becker,  3  S.  D.  29,  51  N.  W. 
1018;  State  v.  Lusater.  9  Baxt.  584; 
Tadlock  v.  Eccles,  20  Tex.  782,  73 
Am.  Dec.  213;  Henrico  Co.  Sup'rs 
v.  M  (Cruder,  84  Va.  828,  6S.  E.  232; 
Commonwealth  v.  Brown,  91  Va. 
762,  21  S.  E.  357;  Percival  v.  Cowy- 
chee,  etc.  Dist,  15  Wash.  480,  46 
Pac.  1035;  Slack  v.  J"cob,  8  W.  Va. 
040;  In  re  Fourth  Judicial  District, 
4  Wyo.  133,32  Pac.  850;  Omaha  v. 
U.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  73  Fed.  1013.  20  C.  C. 
A.  219,  3G  U.  S.  App.  615;  Missis- 
sippi, etc.  Co.  v.  Prince,  10  Am.  & 
En-  Corp.  Cas.  391. 

8 Johnson  v.  Harrison,  47  Minn. 
575,  50  X.  W.  923,  28  Am.  St.  Rep. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  187 

vestigation  into  the  methods  adopted  by  modern  legislation 
will  show  that  the  passage  of  any  bill  upon  its  intrinsic 
merits  is  of  rare  occurrence,  logrolling  being  as  successfully 
carried  on  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  number  of  bills  upon 
different  subjects  as  if  the  same  legislation  could,  as  for- 
merly, be  included  in  a  single  bill.  The  constitutional  pro- 
vision, it  is  believed,  however,  does  furnish  a  remedy  for 
the  other  evils  against  which  it  is  directed."9 

§  112  (79).  Regarded  as  mandatory. —  The  efficiency  of 
this  constitutional  remedy  to  cure  the  evil  and  mischief 
which  has  been  pointed  out  depends  on  judicial  enforcement; 
on  this  constitutional  injunction  being  regarded  as  raanda" 
tory,  and  compliance  with  it  essential  to  the  validity  of 
legislation.  The  mischief  existed  notwithstanding  the  sworn 
official  obligation  of  legislators;  it  might  be  expected  to  con- 
tinue notwithstanding  that  that  obligation  is  formulated 
and  emphasized  in  this  constitutional  injunction,  if  it  be 
construed  as  addressed  exclusively  to  them,  and  only  direct- 
ory. It  would,  in  a  general  sense,  be  a  dangerous  doctrine 
to  announce  that  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
may  be  obeyed  or  disregarded  at  the  mere  will  or  pleasure 
of  the  legislature,  unless  it  is  clear  beyond  all  question  that 
such  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  that  instrument. 
It  would  seem  to  be  a  lowering  of  the  proper  dignity  of  the 
fundamental  law  to  say  that  it  descends  to  prescribing  rules 
of  order  in  unessential  matters  which  may  be  followed  or 
disregarded  at  pleasure.10  The  fact  is  this:  that  whatever 
constitutional  provision  can  be  looked  upon  as  directory 
merely  is  very  likely  to  be  treated  by  the  legislature  as  if  it 
was  devoid  of  moral  obligation,  and  to  be  therefore  habitu- 
ally disregarded.11 

§  113  (80).  The  provision  has  been  held  mandatory  in 
Tennessee  on  its  particular  language.     Thus,  in  Cannon  v. 

9  Catron    v.   County  Com'rs,    18        10  Commissioners    of    Sedgwick 
Colo.  553,  33  Pac.  513,  55a  Co.  v.  Bailey,  13  Kan.  607. 

UCooley,  Const.  Lira,  *78. 


ISS 


Tl  I  LE   v\-    AIMS. 


Matins,1-  Nicholson,  C.  J.,  called  attention  to  the  words: 
••  No  bill  shall  become  a  law  which  embraces  more  than  ono 
subject."  "This,"  lie  said,  "is  a  direct,  positive  and  imper- 
ative limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  legislature.  It  mat- 
ters not  that  a  lull  has  passed  through  three  readings  in 
each  house  on  different  days,  and  has  received  the  approval 
of  the  governor,  still  it  is  not  a  law  of  the  state  if  it  em- 
braces more  than  one  subject."  So,  in  Central  &  G.  R.  I  <>. 
v.  People,18  the  last  clause  in  the  provision,  as  adopted  in 
Colorado  and  several  other  states,  was  held  decisive.  That 
clause  is,  "  but  if  any  subject  shall  be  embraced  in  any  act 
which  shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title,  such  act  shall  be 
void  only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as  shall  not  be  so  expressed."  M 
But  in  all  the  states  having  such  a  restrictive  provision  in 
which  the  question  has  arisen,  except  Ohio,15  and  California 
under  her  former  constitution,16  the  command  has  been  held 
to  be  mandatory.17 

.'  114(81).  The  courts  possess  and  exercise  the  same  power 
to  expound  and  apply  the  provision  of  the  constitution  under 


Heisk.  r,04 
13  5  Colo.  39. 
I*  Art  5,  sec.  21. 

15  Miller  v.  State,  3  Ohio  St.  475; 
Pirn  v.  Nicholson,  G  Ohio  St.  17G; 
Steamboat  Northern  Indiana  v. 
Milliken,  7  Ohio  St.  3S3;  Lehman 
v.  McBride,  15  Ohio  St.  573;  Stato 
v.  Covington,  etc..  29  Ohio  St.  102 
Oshe  v.  State,  37  Ohio  St  500. 
"  Washington  v.  Page,  4  Cal.  388 

t  v.  i  Irouch,  10  Cal.  315. 

"People  v.  Hills.  35  N.  Y.  449 

Gaskin  v.  Meek.  42  N.  Y.  18G;  Peo- 

■ .  Alien.  42  N.  Y.878;  People  v. 

Lawrence,  88  Barb.  185;  Huber  v. 

.   4.1    N.   Y.    132;    People  v. 

Parks  58  Cai  635;  People  v.  Flem- 

I,  3   Pac.  70;  Central 

.  R  Co.  v.  People.  5  Colo.  39, 

-.  T.  P.  P.  ('as.  546; 

Montgomery,  etc,  Ass'n   v.    Pobin- 


son,  G9  Ala.  413;  Supervisors  v. 
Heenan,  2  Minn.  330;  Cannon  v. 
Hemphill,  7  Tex.  184;  Cannon  v. 
Mathes,  8  Heisk.  504;  State  v.  Mc- 
Cann,  4  Lea,  1;  Shields  v.  Bennett, 
8  W.  Va.  85;  Phillips  v.  Covington, 
etc.  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  221;  Commis- 
sioners of  Sedgwick  Co.  v.  Bailey, 
13  Kan.  607;  Weaver  v.  Lapsley,  43 
Ala.  224;  Union  Passenger  Ry.  Co.'s 
Appeal,  81*  Pa.  St  91;  State  v. 
Miller,  45  Mo.  405;  Tadlock  v.  Ec- 
cles,  20  Tex.  782,  73  Am.  Deo.  213; 
City  of  San  Antonio  v.  Gould,  34 
Tex.  49;  Stato  v.  McCracken,  42 
Tex.  383;  Pennington  v.  Wool  folk, 
70  Ky.  13;  Ex  parte  Liddell.  93 
Cal.  G33.  29  Pac.  251;  State  v.  Mor- 
gan, 2  S.  D.  32,  4^  N.  W.  314; 
Saunders  v.  Savage,  108  Tenn.  340, 
07  S.  W.  471. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  ISO 

consideration  as  they  do  to  construe  and  enforce  any  other. 
It  is  as  fatal  to  an  act  to  be  framed  contrary  to  the  consti- 
tution in  its  title  and  by  embracing  a  plurality  of  subjects, 
as  it  would  be  to  insert  provisions  to  operate  contrary  to  its 
other  limitations.18 

The  courts  of  Ohio,  in  holding  this  constitutional  clause 
directory,  are  not  to  be  understood  as  conceding  that  it  is 
without  obligatory  force.  On  the  contrary  it  is  declared  to 
be  a  direction  to  the  general  assembly  which  each  member 
is  under  the  solemn  obligation  of  his  oath  to  observe  and 
obey.  To  the  legislature  it  is  of  equal  obligation  with  a 
mandatory  provision,  but  a  failure  to  observe  it  does  not 
render  the  act  void.  It  is  there  a  rule  of  decision  based  on 
grounds  of  expediency.19 

The  present  constitution  of  California,  besides  adding  to 
the  clause  as  it  stood  in  the  former  constitution,  another 
direction  implying  that  provisions  in  an  act  on  a  subject  not 
expressed  in  the  title  are  void,  contains  a  general  provision 
that  "the  provisions  of  this  constitution  are  mandatory  and 
prohibitory,  unless  by  express  words  they  are  declared  to 
be  otherwise."  20 

The  constitutional  provision  under  consideration  does  not 
apply  to  statutes  lawfully  enacted  before  its  adoption,21  nor 
to  city  ordinances,22  unless  the  constitution  is  broad  enough 
in  terms  to  embrace  municipal  legislation,  or  the  same  re- 
quirement is  enacted  in  the  charter;23  nor  does  it  apply  to 
resolutions  proposing  constitutional  amendments.24 

§  115  (82).  Liberally  construed  to  sustain  legislation 
not  within  the  mischief.—  The  courts  with  great  unanim- 

18 Id.;  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  151,  22 ex  parte  Haskell,  112  Cal.  412, 

61    Am.   Dec.   331,  and  reporter's  44  Pac  725,  32  L.  R,  A.  527;  Topeka 

note,  340.  v.  Raynor,  61  Kan.  10,  58  Pac.  557; 

estate  v.  Covington,  29  Ohio  St  Tarkio  v.  Cook,  120  Mo.  1,  25  S.  W. 

102.  202,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  678;  State  v. 

20  Const.  1870,  art.  1,  sec.  22;  Ex  Gibbs,  60  S.  C.  500,  39  S.  E.  L 
parte  Liddell,  93  Cal.  633,29  Pac.  23  Baumgartner  v.  Hasty,  lOOInd. 
251.  575,  50  Am.  Rep.  830. 

21  Rogers  v.  Windoes,  48  Mich.  24  Julius  v.  Callahan,  63  Minn. 
628.  154,  65  N.  W.  267. 


TITLE   OF   At' is. 

ity  enforce  tin's  constitutional  restriction  in  all  oases  falling 
in   the  mischiefs  intended   thereby   to   bo  remedied. 
And,  in  cases  not  within  those  misohiefs,  they  oonstrue  it 
liberally  to  give  convenient  and  necessary  freedom,  so  far 
as  is  compatible  with  the  remedial  measure,  to  the  law- 
making power.     They  agree  that  whilst  it  is  necessary  to 
spound  this  provision  as  to  prevent  the  evils  it  was  de- 
ed to  remove,  it  is  no  less  desirable  to  avoid  the  opposite 
extreme,  the  necessary  effect  of  which  would  be  to  embar- 
islature  in  the  legitimate  exercise  of  its  powers, 
by  compelling  a  needless  multiplication  of  separate  acts  as 
1   as  to  introduce   a  perplexing  uncertainty  as  to  the 
validity  of  many  important  laws  which  must  be  daily  acted 
upon.-''    To  facilitate  proper  legislation,  it  will  not  be  in- 
terpreted  in  a  strict,  narrow  or  technical  sense,26  but  rea- 
sonably.-'7    "  This  provision  of  the  constitution  ought  not  to 
receive  a  narrow  or  technical  construction,  which  will  em- 
barrass legislation  by  making  laws  unnecessarily  restrictive 
in  their  scope  and  operation;  but,  like  all  provisions  of  the 
organic  law,  it  should  be  fairly  and  liberally  interpreted 
and  enforced,  so  that  it  will  serve  to  prevent  the  abuses  at 
which  it  was  aimed  without  placing  unnecessary  restraints 
upon  legislative  action."28 

25  Parkinson  v.  State,  14  Md.  184,  of  Union,  33  N.  J.  L.  350;  Shields  v. 
194,  74  Am.  Dec.  523;  People  v.  Ma-  Bennett,  8  W.  Va.  83. 
haney,  13  Mich.  481, 495;  City  of  St.  26  Municipality  No.  3  v.  Michoud, 
Louis  v.  Tiefel,  42  Mo.  578;  Mont-  6  La.  Ann.  G05. 
gomery  Mut  B.  &  L,  Asso.  v.  Rob-  27Ryerson  v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  209. 
9  Ala.  413;  In  re  Wakker,  3  28South  St.  Paul  v.  Lamprecht 
162;  Sharp  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  31  Bros.  Co.,  88  Fed.  449, 451,  31  C.  C.  A. 
Barb.  572;   People   v.   Ins.   Co.,   19  585.  Numerous  cases  announce  sub- 
Mich.  392-    Atkinson  v.  Duffy,  16  stantially  the  same  rule  of  con- 
Minn.  49;  State  v.  Lasater,  9  Baxt.  struction:   Judson  v.  Bessemer,  87 
9mith   v.   Commonwealth,   8  Ala.    240,  6    So.   267;    Barnhill  v. 
108;  Mayor,  etc  of  Annapolis  Teague,  96  Ala.  207, 11  So.  444;  Ran- 
11.  112;  Ryerson  v.  Ut-  dolph  v.  Builders'  &  Painters'  Sup- 
.  10  Mich.  209;  State  ex  rel.  Atty.  ply  Co.,   106  Ala.   501,   17  So.  721; 
•  .  v.  Etanson,  73  Mo.  7*;  Slack  v.  State  v.  Rogers,  107  Ala.  444,  19  So. 
.  Town  909;  State  v.  Street,  117  Ala.  203,  23 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


101 


In  State  v.  Miller29  the  court  say:  "The  courts  in  all  the 
states  where  a  like  or  similar  provision  exists  have  given  a 
very  liberal  interpretation,  and  have  endeavored  to  con- 
strue it  so  as  not  to  limit  and  cripple  legislative  enactment 


So.  807;  Ex  parte  Liddell,  93  Cal. 
633,  29  Pac.  251;  Beach  v.  Von  Det- 
ten,  139  Cal.  402,  73  Pac.  187;  Da- 
vidson  v.  Von  Detten,  139  Cal.  407, 
73  Pac.  189;  In  re  Breene,  14  Colo. 
401,  24  Pac,  3;  Sessions  v.  State,  115 
Ga.  18,  41  S.  E.  259;  People  v.  Blue 
Mountain  Joe,  129  I1L  370,  21  N.  E. 
923 ;  McGurn  v.  Board  of  Education, 
133  111.  122,  24  N.  E.  529;  Ritfchie  v. 
People,  155  111.  98,  40  N.  E.  454,  462, 
46  Am.  St.  Rep.  315,  29  L,  R.  A.  79; 
Hundall  v.  Ham,  172  111.  76,  49  X.  E. 
985;  Bobel  v.  People,  173  111.  19,  50 
X.  E.  322,64  Am.  St.  Rep.  64;  Man- 
chester v.  People,  178  111.  285,  52  N. 
E.  964;  Park  v.  Modern  Woodmen, 
181  I1L  214,  54  N.  E.  932;  People  v. 
People's  Gas  Light  &  C.  Co.,  205 
111.  482,  68  N.  E.  950:  Benson  v. 
Christian,  129  Ind.  535,  29  N.  E.  20; 
State  v.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434,  29  N. 
E.  595,  14  L,  P.  A.  566;  Isenhour  v. 
State,  157  Ind.  517,  62  N.  E.  40,  87 
Am.  St.  Rep.  228;  Cook  v.  Marshall 
County,  119  Iowa,  3-1,  93  N.  W.  372; 
State  v.  Sanders,  42  Kan.  228,  21 
Pac.  1073;  In  re  Pinckney,  47  Kan. 
89,  27  Pac.  179;  Blaker  v.  Hood,  53 
Kan.  499,  36  Pac.  1115,  24  L  R  A. 
854;  Otto  Gas  Engine  Works  v. 
Hare,  64  Kan.  78,  67  Pac.  444;  Wil- 
son v.  Herrick,  04  Kan.  007,  68  Pac. 
72;  Con  ley  v.  Commonwealth,  98 
Ky.  125,  32  S.  W.  285;  Nunn  v.  Citi- 
zens' Bank,  107  Ky.  202,  53  S.W.  005; 
State  v.  Norn's.  70  Md  91,  16  Atl. 
445;  State  v.  Madson,  43  Minn.  438, 


45  X.  W.  856;  Boyle  v.  Vanderhoof, 
45  Minn.  31,  47  X.  W.  390;  Putnam 
v.  St.  Paul,  75  Minn.  514,  78  X.  W. 
90;  Winters  v.  Duluth,82Minn.  127, 
84  N.  W.  788;  Ek  v.  St,  Paul  Per- 
manent Loan  Co.,  84  Minn.  245,  87 
X.  W.  841;  State  v.  Miller,  100  Mo. 
439,  13  S.  W.  677;  Hotchkiss  v.  Ma- 
rion. 12  Mont.  218, 29  Pac.  821 ;  West- 
ern Ranches  v.  Custer  County,  28 
Mont.  278;  Kansas  City  &  O.  R.  Co. 
v.  l-'rey,  30  Neb.  790,  47  N.  W.  87; 
State  v.  Washoe  Co.  Com'rs,  22  Nev. 
399,  41  Pac.  145;  In  re  Haynes,  54 
X.  J.  L.  6,  22  Atl.  923;  Astor  v.  Ar- 
cade Ry.  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  93,  20  N.  E. 
594,  2  L.  R.  A.  789;  Wrought  Iron 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Attica,  119  N.  Y.  204, 
23  X.  E.  542;  State  v.  Woodmanse, 
1  X.  D.  240,  40  X.  W.  970, 11  L.  R.  A. 
420;  Power  v.  Kitching,  10  N.  D. 
254,  80  X.  W.  737;  Eaton  v.  Guaran- 
tee Co.,  11  N.  D.  79,  88  X.  W.  1029; 
State  v.  Koshland,  25  Ore.  178,  35 
Pac.  32;  In  re  Su:'ar  Notch  Borough. 
192  Pa.  St.  349,  43  Atl.  985;  Floyd  v. 
Perrin,  30  S.  C.  1,  8  S.  E.  14,  2  L.  R 
A.  242;  State  v.  Morgan,  2  S.  D.  32, 
48  X.  W.  314;  State  v.  Becker,  3  S. 
D.  29,51  X.W.  1018;  Frazier  v.  Rail- 
way Co.,  88  Tenn.  138, 12  S.  W.  537; 
Powell  v.  Supervisors,  88  Va.  707, 
14  S.  E.  543;  Commonwealth  v. 
Brown,  91  Va.  762,  21  S.  E  :J57; 
Lancy  v.  King  Co,  15  Wash.  9,  45 
Pac.  645,  31  L.  R  A.  817;  Diana 
Shooting  Club  v.  Lamereux,  114 
Wis.  44,  89  N.  W.  880,  90  Am.  St. 


W  15  Mo.  497. 


J  1  I  !    1.     OF     AC  IS. 

any  farther  than  whal  was  necessary  by  the  absolute  re- 
quirement of  the  law. 

The  supreme  court  of  Louisiana,  in  commenting  on  an 
argument  of  counsel  which  demanded  a  strict  const  ruction, 
this  Language:  "We  think  the  argument  invokes  an 
interpretation  too  rigorous  and  technical.  If  in  applying  it 
louid  follow  the  rules  of  a  nice  and  fastidious  verbal 
criticism,  we  should  often  frustrate  the  action  of  the  legis- 
lature without  fill  Idling  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the 
tution."81  The  intent  of  this  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution is  to  prevent  the  union  in  one  act  of  incongruous 
matter,  and  of  objects  having  no  connection  and  relation; 
to  require  singleness  of  subject-matter,  and  an  indicative  or 
stive  title  to  prevent  surprise  by  having  matter  of  one 
nature  embraced  in  a  bill,  while  its  title  is  silent  or  cx- 
s  another.  But  there  must  be  some  limit  to  the  divis- 
ion of  matter  into  separate  bills  or  acts.32  A  reasonable  con- 
struction permits  the  single  subject  to  be  comprehensive 
enough  for  practical  purposes,  for  it  only  necessitates  the 
separation  of  entireties,  and  great  latitude  is  allowed  in 
stating  the  subject  in  the  title. 

But  a  disregard  of  the  constitutional  restriction  even  in 
an  otherwise  meritorious  bill  will  be  fatal.33  The  departure, 
however,  must  be  plain  and  manifest,  and  all  doubts  will 
be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  law.34  The  objections  should  be 
grave,  and  the  conflict  between  the  statute  and  the  consti- 
tution  palpable,  before  the  judiciary  should  disregard  a 
legislative  enactment  upon  the  sole  ground  that  it  em- 
braced more  than  one  subject,  or,  when  it  contains  but  one 

Rep.  833;    In   re  Fourth  Judicial  »°Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  170. 

District,  4  Wyo.  133,  32  Pac.  850;  81  Succession   of  Lanzetti,  9  La. 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St  Ry.  Ann.  333. 

Co.,  184  U.  S.  369,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  410,  3'-'Stajte  v.  County  Judge,  2  Iowa, 

46  L.  Ed  692;  West  Plaines  v.  Sage,  280. 

69  Fed.  9 13.  10  C.  C.  A.  553,  32  U.  S.  »  People  v.  Denahy,  20  Mich.  349; 

A  pp.  725;  Mexican  National  Ry.  Co.  State  v.  Tucker,  40  Ind.  355. 

v.  Jackson,  118  Fed.  549,  55  C.  C.  A.  **  State  v.  County  Judge,  2  Iowa,. 

282. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  193 

subject,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  expressed 
in  the  title.35  Legislation  is  also  liberally  construed  to  ren- 
der it,  in  proper  cases,  conformable  with  this  feature  of  the 
fundamental  law.  This  liberality  will  be  fully  illustrated 
in  the  ensuing  sections. 

§116(83).  The  subject  or  object  of  a  statute.— The 
subject  of  a  statute  is  the  matter  of  public  or  private  con- 
cern in  respect  to  which  its  provisions  are  enacted ;  its  ob- 
ject is  its  general  aim  or  purpose.36  The  constitutional 
clause  under  consideration,  in  some  instances,  is  that  no  law 
shall  embrace  more  that  one  subject;  in  others,  no  more 
than  one  object.  These  words  are  not  strictly  synonymous; 
but  the  provisions  thus  verbally  varying  have  received  sub- 
stantially the  same  construction.  The  decisions  made  in 
New  Jersey,  Michigan  and  West  Virginia  are  freely  quoted 
in  the  other  states;  practically  the  same  rule  or  principle  of 
construction  is  acknowledged,  and  no  distinctions  have  been 
established  on  the  use  of  one  of  these  words  instead  of  the 
other,  though  allusion  has  sometimes  been  made  to  this 
difference  of  terras.37  In  Texas  the  earlier  constitution  used 
the  word  "object"  and  the  later  ones  used  "subject,"  and 
it  is  held  that  that  change  of  words  did  not  change  the 
essential  meaning  of  the  provision.38  The  particular  object 
of  a  statute  cannot  be  expressed  without  also  expressing  the 
subject  of  it.  Thus  in  an  act  to  divide  the  state  into  judi- 
cial districts,  the  subject  and  object  are  identical;  that  is, 
the  answer  would  be  the  same  respectively  to  questions 

35  MontcJair  v.  Ramsdell,  107  U.  S.  605.    In  Louisiana,  where  the  pro 

155,  2  S.  C.  Rep.  391,  27  L.  Ed.  431.  vision  in  question   has  the   word 

""Matter  of  Mayer,  50  N.  Y.  507;  "object,"  it  is  said  by  the  court: 

Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  192.  "  The  object  of  a  law  is  the  aim  or 

s? Shields  v.  Bennett,  8  W.  Va.  83;  purpose  of  the  enactment."     "The 

State  v.  Cassidy,  22  Minn.  325,  21  subject  of  a  law  is  the  matter  to 

Am.    Rep.    765;    Lien    v.    County  which  it  relates  and  with  which  it 

Com'rs,  80  Minn.  58,  82  N.  W.  1094.  deals."    State  v.  Ferguson,  104  La. 

38  Adams  v.   San  Angelo  Water  249,  28  So.  917,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  123. 
Works  Co.,  8G  Tex.  485,  25  S.  W. 
13 


ted  by  those  words.  There  is,  therefore,no  impropriety 
in  using  them  indifferenl 

.  Constitution  does  not  restrict  scope  of  sub- 
ject embraced  by  act.— There  is  no  constitutional  restric- 
ope  or  magnitude  of  the  single  subject  of  a 
ative  act.     One  to  establish   the   government   of   the 
embraces  but  a  single  subject  or  object,  yet  it  includes 
3  institutions,  all  its  statutes:1"     The  unity  of  such  an 
the  multiform  concerns  of  a  commonwealth, 
is  the  congruity  of  all  the  details  as  parts  of  one  "stupen- 
dous whole,"  of  one  government.   That  is  the  grand  subject 
•h  a  statute  or  system  of  laws;  it  is  equally  the  object 
of  all  its  varied  titles  of  chapters  and  sections. 

There  is  similar  unity  in  acts  creating  municipal  corpora- 
itute  creates  the  corporate  entity,  invests 
it  with  and  regulates  the  exercise  of  the  necessary  legisla- 
te! ieial  and  police  powers.     It  embraces  but 
one   subject.     The   separate   provisions  granting,  defining 
and  regulating  these  powers  are  but  parts  of  a  whole,  and 
I   to  make  a  whole  —  the  municipality.40     One  act 
may  define  all  the  crimes  and  provide  a  procedure  in  prose- 
cutions.    Each  crime  is  distinct;  the  practice  is  distinct; 
but  all  the  provisions  of  such  an  act  are  congruous  parts  of 
a  larger  subject  which  is  an  entirety.41  The  California  codes 
I  illustrations  of  comprehensive  acts,  each  of  which 
is  a  composite  unity.     One  is  entitled  "An  act  to  establish 
a  political  code."     The  first  section  defines  its  scope  and 
:   ••  This  act  shall  be  known  as  the  political  code  of  the 
of  California,  and  is  divided  into  five  parts  as  follows: 

wman   v.    Cockrill,   6  Kan.  Borough,  192  Pa.  St.  34*),  43  Atl.  98a 

:,1 1.  And  see  post,  §§  127,  12a 

;rris  v.  People,  59  X.  Y.  ."399;        41  State  v.  Brassfield,  81  Mo.  151, 

lair  v.    Ramsdell,  107  U.  S.  1G2,  51  Am.  Rep.  234;  City  Council 

131;  v.  Birdsong,  126  Ala.  638,  28  Si 

r  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  N.  J.  L.  Central   of   Georgia   R  K.    Co.    v. 

State,  104  Ga.  831,  31  S.  E.  531,  42 

Aim.  L.  l:.  A.  518. 
Sjug;ir   N 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  195 

Part  1.  Of  the  sovereignty  and  people  of  the  state,  and  of 
the  political  rights  and  duties  of  all  persons  subject  to  its 
jurisdiction.  2.  Of  the  chief  political  divisions,  seat  of 
government,  and  le^al  distances  of  the  state.  3.  Of  the 
government  of  the  state.  4.  Of  the  government  of  counties, 
cities  and  towns.  5.  Of  the  definitions  and  sources  of  law; 
the  common  law;  the  publication  and  effect  of  the  codes; 
and  the  express  repeal  of  the  statutes."  The  constituents 
of  this  section  are  congruous  as  parts  of  a  political  system. 
But  in  less  comprehensive  legislation,  the  subject  or  object 
may  admit  of  joining  only  the  topics  in  one  of  these  subdi- 
visions. So  in  legislating  still  more  in  detail,  the  subject 
may  be  so  circumscribed  that  even  two  topics  in  one  sub- 
division would  render  the  act  multifarious.42  The  constitu- 
tion does  not  enumerate  the  integers  of  statutory  law,  and 
therefore  the  legislature  may  make  such  divisions  as  it 
thinks  proper,  if  it  confines  each  act  to  a  single  subject;  nor 
is  it  any  objection,  under  this  clause  of  the  constitution, 
that  an  act  does  not  dispose  of  the  whole  subject  to  which 
it  relates.43 

The  supreme  court  of  California,  in  a  recent  case,  in  dis- 
cussing an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  revise  the  code  of  civil 
procedure  of  the  state  of  California,  by  amending  certain 
sections,  repealing  others,  and  adding  certain  new  sections," 
expressed  itself  as  follows  upon  the  subject  of  general  titles: 
"  We  cannot  agree  with  the  contention  of  some  of  re- 
spondent's counsel — apparently  to  some  extent  counte- 
nanced by  a  few  authorities  —  that  the  provision  of  the 
constitution  in  question  can  be  entirely  avoided  by  the 
simple  device  of  putting  into  the  title  of  an  act  words  which 
denote  a  subject  '  broad '  enough  to  cover  everything. 
Under  that  view  'An  act  concerning  the  laws  of  the  state' 
would  be  good,  and  the  convention  and  people  who  framed 
and  adopted  the  constitution  would  be  convicted  of  the 
folly  of  elaborately  constructing  a  grave  constitutional  lim- 
itation of  legislative  power  upon  a  most  important  subject, 

«  Grover  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  N.  J.  L.  309.       «  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  158. 


196  TITLE   ov   AC  is. 

which  the  legislature  could  at  once  circumvent  by  a  mere 
verbal  trick.  The  word  'subject'  is  used  in  the  constitu- 
tion in  its  ordinary  sense;  and  when  it  Bays  that  an  act 
shall  embrace  but  'one  subjeot'  it  necessarily  implies  — 
what  everybody  knows  -that  there  are  numerous  subjects 
of  legislation,  and  that  only  one  of  these  subjects  shall  bo 
embraced  in  any  one  act.  All  subjects  cannot  be  joined 
one  subject  by  the  mere  magic  of  a  word  in  the  title. 
.  .  .  Nearly  all  of  our  general  laws  arc  arranged,  for 
convenience,  under  four  main  headings,  or  names,  to  wit: 

ivil  (  ode,  the  (  ode  of  Civil  Procedure,  the  Penal  Code, 
and  the  Political  Code,  but  no  one  of  these  codes  is  com- 

in  itself;  legislation  under  either  code  is  inseparably 
interwoven  with  legislation  under  the  others;  and  legisla- 
tion upon  any  imaginable  subject  would  not  be  held  invalid 

ise  found  in  any  particular  code.  .  .  .  How,  then, 
can  it  be  rightly  said  that  a  mere  reference  in  the  title  of 
an  act  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  —  or  to  any  other 
code  —  expresses  any  subject?  If  so,  what  subject?  If  the 
reference  had  been  merely  to 'civil  procedure' — if  it  had 
been  'An  act  concerning  civil  procedure,'  —  itis  doubtful  if 
it  would  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  clear  intent  of 
the  constitution  as  to  one  subject.  There  is  no  definition 
in  our  laws  of  'procedure,'  nor  can  any  satisfactory  defini- 
tion of  it  be  found  in  the  general  authorities.  .  .  .  But, 
as  before  stated,  the  title  merely  refers  to  one  of  our  codes, 
and,  considering  the  multifarious  character  of  the  codes,  it 
expresses  no  subject  whatever."44 

On  the  other  hand  the  supreme  court  of  Minnesota,  in 
affirming  the  validity  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  estab- 
lish a  probate  code,"  which  contained  twenty-one  chapters 
and  three  hundred  and  twenty-six  sections,  and  embraced 
wills,  descent  of  real  and  personal  property,  administration 
of  estates  of  deceased  persons,  and  all  the  various  matters 
usually  cognizable  in   probate  courts,  says:  "Again,  while 

M  Lewia  v.  Dunne,  134  Cat.  291,  L.  R.  A.  83a  And  see  Trumble  v. 
66  Paa  478,  86  Am  St.  Rep.  257,  55    Crumble,  37  Neb.  340,  55  N.  W.  SOU. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  197 

this  provision  is  mandatory,  yet  it  is  to  be  given  a  liberal 
and  not  a  strict  construction.  It  is  not  intended  nor  should 
it  be  so  construed  as  to  embarrass  legislation  by  making 
laws  unnecessarily  restrictive  in  their  scope  and  operation, 
or  by  multiplying  their  number,  or  by  preventing  the  legis- 
lature from  embracing  in  one  act  all  matters  properly  con- 
nected with  one  general  subject.  The  term  'subject,'  as 
used  in  the  constitution,  is  to  be  given  a  broad  and  ex- 
tended meaning,  so  as  to  allow  the  legislature  full  scope  to 
include  in  one  act  all  matters  having  a  logical  or  natural 
connection.  .  .  .  Any  construction  of  this  provision  of 
the  constitution  that  would  interfere  with  the  very  com- 
mendable policy  of  incorporating  the  entire  body  of  statu- 
tory law  upon  one  general  subject  in  a  single  act,  instead 
of  dividing  it  into  a  number  of  separate  acts,  would  not 
only  be  contrary  to  its  spirit,  but  also  seriously  embarrass- 
ing to  honest  legislation.  All  that  is  required  is  that  the 
act  should  not  include  legislation  so  incongruous  that  it 
could  not,  by  any  fair  intendment,  be  considered  germane 
to  one  general  subject.  The  subject  may  be  as  comprehen- 
sive as  the  legislature  chooses  to  make  it,  provided  it  con- 
stitutes, in  the  constitutional  sense,  a  single  subject,  and  not 
several.  The  connection  or  relationship  of  several  matters, 
such  as  will  render  them  germane  to  one  subject  and  to 
each  other,  can  be  of  various  kinds,  as,  for  example,  of 
means  to  ends,  of  different  subdivisions  of  the  same  subject, 
or  that  all  are  designed  for  the  same  purpose,  or  that  both 
are  designated  by  the  same  term.  Neither  is  it  necessary 
that  the  connection  or  relationship  should  be  logical;  it  is 
enough  that  the  matters  are  connected  with  and  related  to 
a  single  subject  in  popular  signification.  The  generality  of 
the  title  to  an  act  is  no  objection,  provided  only  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  give  notice  of  the  general  subject  of  the  proposed 
legislation  and  of  the  interests  likely  to  be  affected.  The 
title  was  never  intended  to  be  an  index  of  the  law."45 

45  Johnson  v.  Harrison,  47  Minn.     382.    And  see  City  Council  v.  Bird- 
575,  50  N.  W.  923,  28  Am.  St.  Rep.    song,  126  Ala.  632,  28  So.  532. 


Tl  il  i     OF    H 

The   rollowing  general   titles  were  sustained  in  recent 

the  acta  in  eaoh  case  being  as  comprehensive  as  the 

voald  indicate:  "  An  act  to  revise,  amend  and  codify 

itutes  in  relation  t<>  crimes  ami  their  punishment;"  '" 

'•  An  act  relative  to  crimes  ami   punishments  ami  pro 

d  criminal  cases;"47  "An  act  to  provide  a  system  of 
revenue."48 

[f  a  restrictive  title  is  chosen  the  act  must  bo  kept  within 

§  lis  (85).  The  provisions  of  an  act  must  be  germane 
in  tine  subject. —  Whatever  may  be  the  scope  of  an  act,  it 
ran  embrace  but  one  subject,  ami  all  its  provisions  must  re- 
i  that  subject;  they  must  be  parts  of  it,  incident  to  it 
or  in  -  ime  reasonable  sense  auxiliary  to  the  object  in  view. 
subject  must  be  expressed  in  the  title  of  the  act.  The 
constitutional   requirement  is  add  to  the  subject,  not 

to  the  details  of  the  act.  The  subject  must  be  single;  the 
provisions,  to  accomplish  the  object  involved  in  that  subject, 
may  be  multifarious.50  It  is  a  matter  of  some  difficulty,  in 
many  instances,  to  determine  precisely  what  is  the  subject 
of  an  act  by  reason  of  the  contrariety  of  its  provisions  and 

omplexity  of  its  machinery  and  aims.  All  acts  are  not 
methodically  framed;   they  do  not  always  declare  directly 

subject  or  ultimate  end  in  the  enacting  part,  and  then 
define  its  constituents  and  adjuvants,  so  that  the  coherence 
and  subordination  of  the  parts,  and  their  relation  to  a  sub- 

.  n  which  they  converge,  can  be  at  once  perceived.  In 
ody  of  an  act  the  subject  in  which  the  operation  of  all 

letails  unite,  or  are  intended  to  unite,  is  not  unfrequently 

to  inference.     If  it  can  be  made  out  by  construction,  is 

«Cook  v.   Marshall  County,  119        48Rosenbloom  v-  State,  64  Neb. 
;   93  X.  W  342.  s'.i  N.  W.  1053. 

an.  35  Wash.  294.        ^Mitchell  v.  Colo.  Milling  &  El. 

ature  may  make  tin.-  title    Co.,  12  Colo.  App,  277,  55   Pac.  736; 

ive    as    it  sees   lit.     In  re  Breene,  14  Colo.  401,  24  Pac.  3. 

v.  Humes,  3  Wash.  367    J8  'Block   v.    State,    66   Ala.   493; 

Ingles  v.  Strauss,   91   Va.    209,   21 

190. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


199 


single,  and  embraces  all  the  provisions  of  the  act,  it  is  enough 
so  far  as  the  purview  is  concerned.51  The  statement  of  the 
subject  in  the  title  when  correctly  and  comprehensively  ex- 
pressed will  furnish  a  key  to  the  intended  unity  of  the  en- 
acting part.  The  whole  act  can  be  valid  only  when  the 
subject  so  stated  includes  all  the  provisions  in  the  body  of 
the  act.52  None  of  the  provisions  of  a  statute  will  be  held 
unconstitutional  when  they  all  relate,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  the  same  subject,  have  a  natural  connection,  and  are  not 
foreign  to  the  subject  expressed  in  the  title.53  As  very  fre- 
quently expressed  by  the  courts,  any  provisions  that  are 
germane  to  the  subject  expressed  in  the  title  may  properly 
be  included  in  the  act.54     "The  constitutional  provision  is  to 


81  State  v.  Tucker,  46  Ind.  355; 
State  v.  Young,  47  Ind.  150;  Robi- 
son  v.  Miner,  G8  Mich.  549,  37  N.  W. 
21. 

S2  Montgomery  M.  B.  &  L.  Ass'n 
v.  Robinson,  69  Ala.  413;  Ex  parte 
Pollard,  40  Ala.  99;  Grover  v.  Trus- 
tees, etc.,  45  N.  J.  L.  399;  Shivers  v. 
Newton,  45  N.  J.  L.  469;  Ryerson 
v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  269;  State  v. 
Bradt,  103  Tenn.  584,  53  S.  W.  942. 

53Howland  Coal  &  Iron  W.  v. 
Brown,  13  Bush,  685;  Phillips  v. 
Bridge  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  222;  Louis- 
ville, etc.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  2  Met.  (Ky.) 
168;  Chiles  v.  Drake,  2  Met.  (Ky.) 
150,  74  Am.  Dec.  406;  Johnson  v. 
Higgins,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  566. 

54  Barnhill  v.  Teague,  96  Ala.  207, 
11  So.  444;  Hawkins  v.  Roberts,  122 
Ala.  130,  27  So.  327;  Edwards  v. 
Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Colo 
59,  21  Pac.  1011;  Catron  v.  County 
Com'rs,  18  Colo.  553,  33  Pac.  513; 
Jones  v.  Aspen  Hardware  Co.,  21 
Colo.  263,  40  Pac.  457,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.  220,  29  L.  R.  A.  143;  County 
Com'rs  v.  Jacksonville,  36  Fla.  196, 
18  So.  339;  Atlanta  v.  Gate  City  St. 


Ry.  Co.,  80  Ga.  276,  4  S.  E.  269; 
Newman  v.  State,  101  Ga.  534,  28 
S.  E.  1005;  Hundall  v.  Hain,  172111. 
76,  49  N.  E.  985;  Rushville  Gas  Co. 
v.  Rushville,  121  Ind.  206.  23  N.  E. 
72,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  3S8;  State  v. 
Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  469; 
Gaines  v.  Williams,  146  111.  450,  34 
N.  E.  934;  Pittsburgh,  Cinn.,  Chi- 
cago &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Montgom- 
ery, 152  Ind.  1,  49  N.  E.  582,  71  Am. 
St.  Rep.  301;  Rogers  v.  Jacob,  88 
Ky.  502,  11  S.  W.  513;  Raubold  v. 
Commonwealth,  21  Ky.  L.  E.  1125, 
54  S.  W.  17;  County  Com'rs  v. 
Hellen,  72  Md.  603,  20  Atl.  130; 
Fort  St.  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Morton, 
83  Mich.  265,  47  N.  W.  228;  Sligh  v. 
Grand  Rapids,  84  Mich.  497,  47 
N.  W.  1093;  Ripley  v.  Evans,  87 
Mich.  217,  49  N.  W.  504;  McPherson 
v.  Blacker,  92  Mich.  377,  52  N.  W. 
469,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  587, 16  L.  R.  A. 
475;  People  v.  Huntley,  112  Mich. 
569,  71  N.  W.  178;  McMoiran  v. 
Ladies  of  the  Maccabees,  117  Mich. 
398, 75  N.  W.  943;  Crawford  v.  Ross, 
126  Mich.  634,  86  N.  W.  132;  State  v. 
Board  of  Com'rs,  67  Minn.  352,  69 


1 1  i  I  l:    OF    A(   fS. 


have  a  practical  and  liberal  construction,  for  it  is  manifest 
that  a  law  may  embrace  but  one  subject,  and  yet  include 
many  provisions  and  details  which  would  ho  inconvenient 

and  unnecessary  to  refer  to  in  the  title.  It  is  sufficient  if 
the  title  fairly  ami  reasonably  expresses  the  subject,  or  is 
sufficiently  broad  and  comprehensive  to  include  the  several 
provisions  relating  to,  or  connected  with,  the  subject.  And 
whatever  provisions  of  the  law  are  germane  to  the  title  of 
the  act  are  proper  to  be  incorporated  into  the  body  there- 
of." » 

§  110  (S6).  Requirement  as  to  form  or  manner  of  ex- 
pressing  subject  in  title. —  The  direction  is,  generally,  that 
the  subject  be  "expressed  in  the  title."  It  is  varied  in  some 
instances.  In  Nevada  it  is  to  be  briefly  expressed;  in  several 
it  is  to  be  dearly  expressed.  These  qualifying  words  do  not 
add  any  new  element;  they  merely  assist  in  the  interpreta- 
tion. A  brief  statement  of  the  subject  will  suffice  under  the 
provision  as  it  is  generally  worded;58  and  the  decisions  in 
Nevada  afford  no  ground  for  inferring  that  a  prolix  title, 


N.  W.  1083;  State  v.  County  Com'rs, 
[inn.  65,  85  N.  W.  830;  State  v. 
Mead, 71  Mo.  266;  State  v.  Burgdoer- 
fer,  107  Mo.  1,  17  S.  W.  640;  State 
v.  Bronson.  115  Mo.  271,  21  S.  W. 
1125;  State  v.  Slover,  134  Mo.  10,  31 
S.  W.  1054,  84  S.  \V.  1102;  De  Both 
v.  Rich  Hill  Coal  &  Min.  Co..  141 
Mo.  .    \V.   1081;   State  v. 

Beck,    25    Nev.   68,   56  Pac.    1008; 

iern  Counties  Trust  v.  Sears, 
38,41  Pac.  931,  85  L  R.  A. 

Nottage  v.  Portland,  35  Ore. 

58  Pac,  883,  76  Am.  st.  Rep. 

513;  Commonwealth  v.  Depuy,  148 

Pa  St.  ..'01,  2:3  Atl.  896;   Haya  v. 

iberland   County,  186  Pa    St. 

10  Atl.  282;  Goebeler  v.  Wil- 

helm,  17  Pa.  Supr.  432;  Prazier  v. 

-iTenn.  138,  12  8.  W. 

State  v.  Yar  Hey,  95  Tenn.  546, 


32  S.  W.  481,  34  L  R  A.  656;  Rail- 
road Co.  v.  Crider,  91  Tenn.  489,  19 
S.  \V.  618;  Ryan  v.  Terminal  Co., 
102  Tenn.  Ill,  50  S.  W.  744,  45  L.  R. 
A.  303;  State  v.  Brown,  103  Tenn. 
419,  53  S.  W.  727;  Peterson  v.  Slat.'. 
104  Tenn.  127,  56  S.  W.  834;  Clark 
v.  Findley,  03  Tex.  171,  54  S.  W. 
1343;  Ingles  v.  Strauss,  91  Va.  207, 
21  S.  E.  100;  Trehy  v.  Marye,  100 
Va  40,  40  S.  E.  126;  Detroit  v.  De- 
troit Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.,  184  U.  S. 
368.  22  S.  C.  Rep.  410,  46  L.  Ed.  592; 
Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Oswego,  59 
Fed.  58,  7C.C.A.  669, 19  U.  S.  App. 
321;  Tabor  v.  Commercial  Nat. 
Hank,  62  Fed.  Rep.  383,  10  C.  C.  A. 
429,  27  U.  S.  App.  111. 

55  Putnam  v.  St.  Paul,  75  Minn. 
514,  78  X.  W.  90. 

M  Sli i  vlt.i  v.  Newton,  45  N.  J.  L.  469. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  201 

otherwise  unobjectionable,  would  vitiate  an  act.57  The  re- 
quirement that  it  be  clearly  expressed  imports  no  more  than 
that  it  be  expressed;  though  it  may  add  some  emphasis.58 
If  the  title  does  not  clearly  express  the  subject,  but  is  am- 
biguous and  suggestive  of  doubt,  still  it  is  believed  the  doubt, 
if  possible,  would  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the 
act.59  The  title  of  an  act  was  formerly  no  part  of  it,  and 
was  not  much  resorted  to  in  the  exposition  of  the  act;  but 
mder  this  constitutional  clause  it  is  an  indispensable  part 
of  every  act.60 

§  120  (87).  The  subject  in  an  act  can  be  no  broader  than 
the  statement  of  it  in  the  title. —  It  is  required  not  only 
that  an  act  shall  contain  but  one  subject,  but  that  that  sub- 
ject be  expressed  in  the  title.  The  title,  thus  made  a  part 
of  each  act,  must  agree  with  it  by  expressing  its  subject;  the 
title  will  fix  bounds  to  the  purview,  for  it  cannot  exceed  the 
title-subject,  nor  be  contrary  to  it.61  An  act  will  not  be  so 
construed  as  to  extend  its  operation  beyond  the  purpose 
expressed  in  the  title.62    It  is  not  enough  that  the  act  em- 

67  State  v.  Ah  Sam,  15  Nev.  27.  Ind.  374;  Matter  of  Tappen,  36  How. 

53Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  192;  Pr.   390;   State  v.  Garrett,  29  La. 

Commonwealth  v.Martin,  107 Pa.St.  Ann.  637;  Coutieri   v.  Mayor,  etc., 

185;  W.  Phila.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Union  R.  44  N.  J.  L.  58;  Mississippi,  etc.  Boom 

R.  Co.,  9  Phila.  495;  Carr  v.  Thomas,  Co.  v.  Prince,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Cor. 

18  Fla.  736;  Evans  v.  Memphis,  etc.  Cas.  391,  34   Minn.  71;    Ex   parte 

R.  R.  Co.,  56  Ala.  246,  28  Am.  Rep.  Moore,  62  Ala.  471;  Matter  of  B!od- 

771;  Board  of  Com'rs  v.  Baker,  80  gett,  89  N.  Y.  392;  Crabb  v.  State, 

Ind.  374;  Township  of  Union  v.  Ra-  88  Ga.  584,  15  S.  E.  455;  Land  Title 

der,  39  N.  J.  L.  509.  Warranty  &  Safe  Dep.  Co.  v.  Tan- 

s9  Montclair  v.  Ramsdell,  107  U.  ner,  99  Ga.  470,  27  S.  E.  727;  Harris 

S.  147,  2  S.  C.  Rep.  391,  27  L.  Ed.  431;  v.  State,  110  Ga.  887,  36  S.  E.  232; 

State  v.  Board,  etc.,  26  Ind.  522;  Peo-  Dixon  v.  Poe,  159  Ind.  492,  65  N.  E. 

pie  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  553.  518;  State  v.  Pierson,  41  La.  Ann. 

w  McGrath  v.  State,  46  Md.  633;  90,  10  So.  400;  Jones  v.  Morristown, 

State  v.  Town  of  Union,  33  N.  J.  L.  66  N.  J.  L.  488,  49  Atl.  440;  Lacey 

330;    Indiana  Central  Ry.    Co.   v.  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159,  24  S.  E.  9:J0. 

Potts,  7  Ind.  681;  Yeager  v.  Weaver,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  795. 

64  Pa  St.  427;  Stein  v.  Leeper,  78  «2  Bates  v.  Nelson,  49  Mich.  459, 

Ala.  517.  13  N.  W.  817;  Elliott  v.  State.  91 

61  Board  of  Com'rs   v.  Baker,  80  Ga.  694,  17  S.  E.  1004;  Allen  v.  Dei- 


Tin  E  OF   -v 

tbjeol  or  object,  and  that  all  its  parts 
rmane;  the  title  must  express  that  subject,  ami  com- 
ely enough  to  include  all  the  provisions  in  the  body 
■  unity  and  compass  of  the  subject  must, 
3  be  considered  with  reference  to  both  title 
and  purview.     The  unity  must  be  sought,  too,  in  the  ulti- 
mate end  which  the  act  proposes  to  accomplish,  rather  than 
in  the  details  leading  to  that  end/'4     The  particular  effect 
of  the  purview  exceeding  the  title,  or  of  the  latter  misrep- 
the  purview,  will  be  discussed  in  another  section.65 
The  title  cannot  be  enlarged  by  construction  when  too  nar- 
row to  cover  all  the  provisions  in  the  enacting  part,  nor  can 
arview  be  contracted  by  construction  to  fit  the  title ;  '6 
but  the  title,  if  not  delusively  general,  may  be  sufficient 
agh  more  extensive  than  the  purview.67 

iS  .  Requisites  of  title  generally  — It  need  not 

index   the  details   of  the   act.— The  title  must  state  the 

subject  of  the  act  for  the  purpose  of  information  to  mem- 

of  the  legislature   and   public  while  the  bill  is  going 

through  the  forms  of  enactment.03     It  is  not  required  that 

nards  Tp.,  57  N.  J.  L.  303,  31  Atl.  per.  14  Ind.  295;  Supervisors  v.  Peo- 
ple, 25  111.  131;  Succession  of  Lan- 

wherter  v.  Price,  11  Ind.  201;  zetti,9La.  Ami.  329; post,%  121, 129. 

:  son  v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  2G9;  Dor-  65  See  post,  §  143  et  seq. 

,1,  72  Pa  St.  192;  Roj  Bowland  (  'oal  &  Iron  Works  v. 

97Ind.79;  Knoxville v.Lewis,  Broun,  13  Hush.  681;  In   re  Paul, 

.  Md.  Inst,  for  91  N.  Y.  497;  fatter  of  Sackett.  etc. 

:  1.  144;  Town  of  Fishkill  Sts.,  74  N.  Y.  95:  State  v.  Clinton, 

i.kill,  etc.  P.  R  Co.,  22  Barb.  27  La.  Ann.  40;  post,  §127. 

i'  v.  Tru-tees,  etc.,  45  N.  li7Yeager  v.  Weaver,  G4  Pa.  St. 

J,  L.  399;  Shivers  v.  Newton.  15  X.  427;  In  re  De  Vaucene,  31  How.  Pr. 

.1.   ]..    [69;  Cooli                  •■   I-  179;  337;  Luther  v.  Savior,  8  Mo.  App. 

.  Grilnn,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (X.  424;  Johnson  v.  People,  83  111.  431; 

Coutieri  v.  New  Brunswick,  A  1  X.  .1. 

.  Town  of  Union,  33  X.  L.  58;  <  Marvin  v.  State,  13  Lea.  162; 

J.  L,                             n;iiy  Judge,  2  I  seq. 

c:  rover  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  X. 

Morford  v.  Unger,  J.  I-  399;  McGrath  v.  State, 46  Md. 

.  Whiting  v.  Mt.  1  ■  People  v.  Lawrence,  36  Barb. 

I   Iowa,  482;  Clinton  v.  Dra-  185;    Dorsey's   Appeal,   72  Pa.  St. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


2  »3 


the  title  should  be  exact  and  precise.69  It  is  sufficient  if  the 
language  used  in  the  title,  on  a  fair  construction,  indicates 
the  purpose  of  the  legislature  to  legislate  according  to  the 
constitutional  provision;  so  that  making  every  reasonable 
intendment  in  favor  of  the  act,  it  may  be  said  that  the  sub- 
ject or  object  of  the  law  is  expressed  in  the  title.70  As  said 
by  the  supreme  court  of  Illinois,  the  constitution  does  not 
require  that  "  the  subject  of  the  bill  shall  be  specifically  and 
exactly  expressed  in  the  title;  hence  we  conclude  that  any 
expression  in  the  title  which  calls  attention  to  the  subject 
of  the  bill,  although  in  general  terms,  is  all  that  is  re- 
quired." 71  It  may  be  general,72  but  must  be  specific  enough 
to  answer  reasonably  the  purpose  for  which  the  subject  is 
required  to  be  expressed  in  the  title.73 


192;  Indiana  Cent.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Potts, 
7  Ind.  681;  Shields  v.  Bennett,  8  W. 
Va.  83;  People  v.  McCallum,  1  Neb. 
182;  State  v.  County  Judge,  2  Iowa, 
282;  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mayor, 
etc.,  8  N.  Y.  252;  Mississippi,  etc. 
Boom  Co.  v.  Prince,  10  Am.  & 
Eng.  Cor.  Cas.  392,  34  Minn.  71; 
Harris   v.   People,   59    N.  Y.   602; 


Richoux,  23  La.  Ann.  745;  Johnson 
v.  People,  83  111.  431. 

70  Grover  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  N.  J. 
L.  399;  State  Line,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.'s 
Appeal,  77  Pa.  St.  429;  Atkinson  v. 
Duffy,  16  Minn.  49. 

"i  Johnson  v.  People,  83  111.  436; 
Ritchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  120, 
40  N.  E.  454,  462,  46  Am.  St.  Rep. 


Parkinson  v.  State,  14  Md.  184,  74    315,  29  L.  R.  A.  79. 


Am.  Dec.  522;  Ryerson  v.  Utley,  16 
Mich.  269;  Brewster  v.  Syracuse, 
19  N.  Y.  116;  National  Bank  v. 
Southern,  etc.  Co.,  55  Ga.  36;  Town 
of  Fishkill  v.  Fishkill,  etc.  P.  R.  Co., 
22  Barb.  034;  Hargrave  v.  Weber, 
06  Mich.  59;  Wolf  v.  Taylor,  98  Ala. 
254,  13  So.  688;  Mobile  Trans.  Co.  v. 
Mobile,  128  Ala.  335,  30  So.  645.  86 


re  State  v.  Rogers,  107  Ala.  444, 
19  So.  909;  Catron  v.  County  Com'rs, 
18  Colo.  553,  33  Pac.  513;  Donners- 
berger  v.  Prendergast,  128  111.  229, 
21  N.  E.  1;  Rex  Lumber  Co.  v.  Reed, 
107  Iowa,  111,  77  N.  W.  572;  McKeon 
v.  Sumner  Bldg.  &  Supply  Co.,  51 
La.  Ann.  1961,  26  So.  430;  State  v. 
Am.  Sugar  Ref.  Co.,  106  La.  553,  31 


Am.  St.  Rep.  143;  Ex  parte  Liildell,     So.  l81;Crookston  v.County  Com'rs, 


93   Cal.  633.  29   Pac.  251 ;   State  v. 
Tibbet,  52  Neb.  228,  71  N.  W.  990, 
66  Am.  St.  Rep.  492. 
69  Grover  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  N. 


79  Minn.  283,  82  N.  W.  586,  79  Am. 
St.  Rep.  453;  State  v.  Anaconda 
Copper  Min.  Co.,  23  Mont.  498,  59 
Pac.  854;  Newark   v.  Orange,  55  N. 


J.  L.  399;   Daubman   v.  Smith,  47     J.  L.    514,   26   Atl.    799;    Powell   v. 


N.  J.  L.  200;  In  re  Mayer,  50  N.  Y. 
506;  People  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  D58; 
Louisiana    State    Lottery    Co.    v. 


Supervisors,  88  Va.  707,  14  S.  E.  543. 

73  Shivers  v.  Newton,  45  N.  J.  L. 

409;  State  v.  Garrett,  29  La.   Ann. 


1 1  1 1  i     OF    A.OTS. 


When  the  Bubject  is  stated  in  the  title  the  constitution  is 
>o  far  complied  with  that  no  criticism  of  the  mode  of  state- 
ment  will  affect  the  validity  of  the  act.74  The  statute  is 
valid  in  such  a  case;  the  degree  of  particularity  in  express- 
ing the  subject  in  the  title  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
No  particular  form  has  been  prescribed  in 
the  constitution  for  expressing  the  subject  or  purpose  of  a 
statute  in  its  title.76  It  need  not  index  the  details  of  the 
oor  give  a  synopsis  of  the  means  by  which  the  object 
of  the  statute  is  to  be  effectuated  by  the  provisions  in  the 
body  of  the  act.77 


Montclair  v.  Ramsdell.  107  U. 
S.  147,  Rep,  391,  27  L.  Ed. 

481;  Matter  of  Sackett,  eta  Sts., 
74  N.  Y.  95;  Shields  v.  Bennett,  8 
W.  Y  .'n  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  R 

Mayor,  etc.  v.  State, 
4  Ga.  26;  City  of  Eureka  v.  Davis, 
21  Kan.  580;  Grover  v.  Trustees, 
etc..  45  N.  .T.  L  399;  People  v.  McCal- 
lum, 1  Neb.  183;  Montgomery,  etc. 
Ass'n  v.  Robinson,  G9  Ala.  413; 
American  Printing  House  v.  Du- 
puy,  37  La.  Ann.  188;  State  v.  Wil- 
son, 12  Lea,  246;  State  v.  McCou- 
nelL3Lea,332;  Statu  v.Whitworth, 
8  Lea,  594;  Common  wealth  v. 
Green,  58  Pa.  St  226;  Luehrman  v. 
Taxing  Disk,  2  Lea.  425;  Clinton 
Water  Com'ra  v.  Dwigbt,  L01  N.  Y. 
9,  8  N.  E  782;  I.)  re  Knaust,  101  N. 
Y.  188,  4  N.  E.  388;  Greaton  v.  Grif- 
fin. 4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  a)  810;  Daubman 

litb,  47  N.  J.  L  200;  State  v. 
Elvins,  32  N.  J.  L.  862;  Parkinson 
v.  State,  14   MA   184;   Falconer  v. 

nson,  46  Ala.  340. 

v.   Winter,  US  Ala.  1,  24 

'.     The  court  say-:   "His  not 

within   the  province   of  courts  to 

.sit  in  judgment  upon  the  t  itle,  and 

..nine    whether    it    could    not 


have  been  drawn  in  some  other 
form,  more  clearly  or  definitely  in- 
dicating the  subject  to  which  the 
body  of  the  act  relates.  The  legis- 
lature is  not  subject  to  judicial 
control  in  respect  to  the  form  or 
mode  in  which  the  subject  of  a 
law  shall  be  expressed  in  the  title. 
If  the  subject  be  expressed,  the 
mandate  and  all  the  purposes  of 
the  constitution  are  satisfied.-' 
pp.  35,  36. 

75  In  re  Mayer,  50  N.  Y.  504;  Sun 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  8  N.  Y. 
241;  State  v.  Town  of  Union,  33 
N.  J.  L,  350;  State  v.  Newark,  34 
N.  J.  L.  230;  Montgomery,  etc. 
Ass'n  v.  Robinson,  60  Ala.  413; 
Ryerson  v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  269; 
People  v.  Mahaney,  13  Mich.  494; 
Morford  v.  Unger,  8  Iowa,  82; 
Whiting  v.  Mt  Pleasant,  11  Iowa, 
482;  Indiana  Cent.  R.  R,  Co.  v. 
Potts,  7  lnd.  681:  State  v.  Bowers, 
14  lnd.  195;  State  v.  Count}' Judge, 
2  Iowa,  280;  Brewster  v.  Syracuse, 
19  N.  Y.  110. 

76  Grover  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  45  X. 
J.  L.  399;  People  v.  McCallum,  1 
Neb.  L82. 

77  People    v.    McCallum,   sujira; 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


205- 


The  supreme  court  of  Indiana  says:  "To  express  the  sub- 
ject of  a  statute  in  the  title,  in  compliance  with  the  require- 
ment of  the  constitution,  no  particular  form  or  terms  are 
exacted,  nor  is  it  essential  that  such  subject  be  expressed 
with  precision.  The  title  will  sufficiently  conform  to  the 
command  of  the  constitution  if  it  be  so  framed  and  worded 
as  fairly  to  apprise  the  legislators,  and  the  public  in  gen- 
eral, of  the  subject-matter  of  the  legislation,  so  as  reason- 
ably to  lead  to  an  inquiry  into  the  body  of  the  bill.  The 
constitutional  requirement  may  be  interpreted  to  mean  that 
the  act  and  its  title  must  correspond,  not  literally  but  sub- 
stantially, and  such  correspondence  is  to  be  determined  in 
view  of  the  subject-matter  to  which  the  legislation  re- 
lates." 78 


Stuart  v.  Kinsella,  14  Minn.  525; 
St.  Paul  v.  Colter,  12  Minn.  50,  90 
Am.  Dec.  278;  State  v.  Daniel,  28 
La.  Ann.  38;  McCaslin  v.  State,  44 
Ind.  151;  Collins  v.  Henderson,  11 
Bush,  74;  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Mayor,  etc.,  8  N.  Y.  241;  Conner  v. 
Mayor,  etc.,  5  N.  Y.  285;  People  v. 
Lawrence,  41  N.  Y.  137;  Daubman 
v.  Smith,  47  N.  J.  L.  200;  Luehr- 
man  v.  Taxing  Dist.,  2  Lea,  425; 
Township  of  Union  v.  Rader,  39  N. 
J.  L.  507;  Brown  v.  State,  73  Ga. 
38;  Reed  v.  State,  12  Ind.  641; 
State  v.  Lasater,  9  Baxt.  584;  State 
v.  Miller,  45  Mo.  495;  Hammond  v. 
Lesseps,  31  La.  Ann.  337;  Peachee 
v.  State,  63  Ind.  399;  Howell  v. 
State,  71  Ga.  224;  Luther  v.  Say  lor, 
8  Mo.  App.  424;  Martin  v.  Broach, 
6  Ga.  21,  50  Am.  Dec.  306;  People 
v.  Brislin,  80  111.423;  Bright  v.  Mc- 
Culloch,  27  Ind.  223;  State  v. 
Cassidy,  22  Minn.  325,  21  Am.  Rep. 
765;  State  v.  County  Conrrs,  13 
Am.  &  Eng.  Cor.  Cas.  203,  17 
Nev.  96;  Goldsmith  v.  Rome  R.  R. 


Co.,  62  Ga.  473;  State  v.  Silver,  9 
Nev.  227;  Gabbert  v.  Jefferson  R. 
R.  Co.,  11  Ind.  365,  71  Am.  Dec.  358; 
State  v.  Winter,  118  Ala.  1,  24  So. 
89;  McGruder  v.  State,  83  Ga.  616, 
10  S.  E.  441 ;  Hronek  v.  People,  134 
111.  139,  24  N.  E.  861,  8  L.  R.  A.  837; 
Parks  v.  State,  159  Ind.  211,  64  N. 
E.  862;  Wilson  v.  Herink,  64  Kan. 
607,  68  Pac.  72;  State  v.Madson,  43 
Minn.  438,  45  N.  W.  856;  Philadel- 
phia v.  Ridge  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  142  Pa. 
St.  484,  21  Atl.  982,  24  Am.  St,  Rep. 
512;  State  v.  Morgan,  2  S.  D.  32,  48 
N.  W.  314;  Memphis  v.  Am.  Ex- 
press Co.,  102  Tenn.  336,  52  S.  W. 
172;  Commonwealth  v.  Brown,  91 
Va.  762,  21  S.  E.  357;  Lancy  v. 
King  Co.,  15  Wash.  9,  45  Pac.  645, 
34  L.  R.  A.  817;  State  v.  Whittlesey, 
17  Wash.  447,  50  Pac.  119. 

-8Maule  Coal  Co.  v.  Parthen- 
heimer,  155  Ind.  100,  106,  55  N.  E. 
751.  And  see  Wrought  Iron  Bridge 
Co.  v.  Attica,  119  N.  Y.  204,  23  N. 
E.  512. 


'Ill  I.I 

9  .  Effecl  of  "etc.,"  "and  so  Forth,"  "and  for 
other  i»  ur  poses"  in  title. —  [t  has  been  decided  in  Tennessee 
"  added  to  a  title  has  foroe  in  extending  the  enu- 
tion  whioh  precedes  it.7'    The  question  arose  as  to  the 
validity  of  provisions  in  an  act  having  this  title:  "  An  act  to 
-  .ill  parties  who  may  engage  in  keeping  or 
icting  halls  or  houses  for  conduct  of  games  of  keno,  faro, 
I  monte  and  mustang,  etc."    Turney,  J.,  delivering 
on  of  the  court,  said:  "  The  'etc.'  used  at  the  end  and 
:t  of  the  title  may  not  be  rejected;  it  has  a  meaning. 
defines  it,  'et  cetera,'  'and  others,'  'and  so  forth.' 
q  applied  here  makes  it  import '  and  the  rest  of 
games.'     It  gives  the  members  of  the 
ture  notic  that  the  subject  of  the  title  is  drawn  or 
•rated  in  the  body  of  the  act;  that  the  reformatory  force 
t  is  not  to  be  confined  to  houses,  or  to  persons  keep- 
ng  the  four  games  recited,  but  is  extended 
It  has  a  significant  and  pointed  conclusion 
which  could  not  escape  the  attention  of  any  member  of  the 
ature  who  has  regard  to  his  obligations  and  duties.     It 
said  to  him  in  terms,  other  games  are  leveled  at  besides  the 
four  mentioned  in  the  title,  and  you  are  invited  to  look  at 
them.    It  admonished  him,  the  act  is  not  made  to  cover  a  leg- 
islation incongruous  in  itself.     By  fair  intendment,  the  bill 
try  and  proper  connection  with  the  act.     .     .     . 
It  cannot  be  objected   that  the  title  upon  the  subject  is 
broader  than  the  act  under  it.     The  title  notified  the  legisla- 
ture of  a  thoroughly  comprehensive  thrust  at  all  parties  en- 
1  in  conducting  gambling  houses;  the  act  confines  the 
ies  conducting  houses  in  the  playing  of  nine 
The  record  shows  there  are  a  great  many  othergames 
which  i    everywhere,  besides  these  mentioned  in 

.  of  which,  however,  we  presume  the  draftsman  of  the 
ininformed,  but  which  might  have  been  embraced 
;  ie title  to  his  act.     ...     It  is  now  insisted  the  ab- 
m  'etc'  has  no  meaning  at  all,  or,  at  most,  means 

ite,  13  Lea,  1G2. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  207 

4  and  for  other  purposes.'  .  .  .  The  abbreviation  may  no- 
longer  be  called  such.  It  is  thoroughly  incorporated  into 
our  language,  is  defined  by  our  lexicographers,  and  is  a  per- 
fect English  word  in  almost  common  use. 

"  It  cannot  mean  '  and  for  other  purposes,'  for  the  reason 
that  such  definitions  would  include  any  and  all  purposes,how- 
ever  foreign  to  the  object  of  the  legislation,  one  of  the  incon- 
veniences and  inconsistencies  intended  to  be  remedied  by  the 
present  constitution."80  In  Virginia  the  words  "and  so 
forth  "  were  held  not  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  title.  The 
act  in  question  was  entitled :  "  An  act  to  prevent  pool  selling, 
and  so  forth,  upon  the  results  of  any  trials  of  speed  of  any 
animals  or  beasts  taking  place  without  the  limits  of  the  com- 
monwealth." The  act  made  unlawful  almost  every  conceiv- 
able form  of  making  bets  or  wagers  upon  such  trials  of  speed. 
It  was  held  that  as  to  all  except  pool-selling  the  act  was  in- 
valid, because  not  embraced  in  the  title.81 

The  phrase,  "  and  for  other  purposes,"  expresses  no  specific 
purpose,  and  imports  indefinitely  something  different  from 
that  which  precedes  it  in  the  title.  It  is  therefore  univers- 
ally rejected  as  having  no  force  or  effect,  wherever  this  con- 
stitutional restriction  operates.82 

8" To  the  same  effect:  Common-  58  Pa.  St,  233;  Spier  v.  Baker,  120 
wealth  v.  Clark,  3  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  141.  Cal.  370,  52  Pac.  659. 41 L.  R.  A.  196; 
In  this  case  the  title  was,  "An  act  County  Com'rs  v.  Aspen  Min.  &  C. 
to  protect  fruit,  gardens,  growing  Co.,  3  Colo.  App.  223,  32  Pac.  717. 
crops,  grass,  et  cetera,  and  punish  The  early  constitution  of  Georgia 
trespass."  The  court  said:  "The  forbade  the  passage  of  a  law  con- 
words  'et  cetera'  in  the  title  under  taining  matter  different  from  that 
consideration  refer  to  tilings  gener-  expressed  in  the  title.  Under  this 
ically  the  same  as  those  particu-  provision  it  was  held  that  the  words 
Jarly  specified,  and  therefore  em-  "and  for  other  purposes,"  "would 
brace  trees,  plants,  flowers  and  the  authorize  legislation  upon  any  sub- 
like." ject   with   which    the    legislature 

81  Lacey  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159.  24  could  constitutionally  deal."  Mar- 
S.  !•:.  930,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  795.  tin  v.  Broach,  6  Ga.  21,  50  Am.  Dec. 

82  City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Tiefel,  42  306,  and  cases  cited  ante,  $  110. 
Mo.  578;  State  v.  Garrett,  29  La.  "Since  1861  these  words  will  not 
Ann.  037;  Commonwealth  v.  Green,  authorize  legislation  upon  any  sub- 


■    - 


TITLE    OF    AC  is. 


12  I   90).  Title  misleading  l».v  reason  of  generality. — 
\  bo  general  as  practically  to  conceal  tin- subject  of 

the  statute,  or  a  false  or  delusive  title,  will  bo  treated  as 
constitutionally  framed,  and  the  act  held  void.88  An 
act  "to  legalize  and  authorize  the  assessment  of  street  im- 
provements and  assessments"  was  held  void  for  undue  gen- 
erality in  not  mentioning  the  place  where  it  was  intended 
to  operate.  It  was  a  local  act,  and  yet  it  did  not  name  the 
city  to  which  it  applied.5*  So  an  act  "to  regulate  a  road  in 
the  town  ol*  Palatine,  Montgomery  county,"  was  held  to 
a!  its  true  subject  and  to  be  false  and  delusive.83  The 
following  acts,  as  entitled,  received  the  same  construction  : 
An  act  to  fix  the  salaries  of  the  officers  of  a  particular  city, 
and  confined  to  that  city  in  its  provisions,  butentitled  "An 
act  to  fix  and  regulate  the  salaries  of  city  oflicers  in  eita  s 
of  this  state;"88  an  act  legalizing  by  its  provisions  a  lot- 
tery scheme  for  a  private  partnership,  under  the  title  of 
"An  act  to  establish  the  Mobile  Charitable  Association  for 
the  benefit  of  the  common  school  fund  of  Mobile  county, 
without  distinction  of  color;"87  a  supplement  to  a  railroad 
charter  providing  for  extension  of  its  track  into  a  new  ter- 
ritory under  a  clause  in  the  title  "  to  lay  additional  tracks."  8ti 


ject  save  one  which  is  germane  to 
the  subject  embraced  in  the  title." 
Macon  v.  Bughes,  110  Ga  795,  36  S. 

; :  Blair  v.  State,  90  Ga.  326, 17 
S.  E.  96,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  206;  Butner 
v.  Boifeuillet,  10U  Ga.  74:3,  23  S.  E. 
404;  Hart  v.  State,  113  Ga.  939,  39  S. 

:.    Practically,  therefore,  such 
words  do  not  extend  the  scope  of 
tlie  title  under  the  later  constitu- 
tions.    See  also  Sasser  v.  State,  09 
Ga  54,  25  S.  E.  019;  Burns  v.  State, 
104  Ga  oil,  30  a  E.  815. 
63  People  v.  Allen,  42  N.  Y.  404 
84  Durkee  v.  City  of  Janesville,  20 
Wia  697.    In  Neuendorff  v.  Duryea, 
V.  557,   25  Am.  Rep  235  an 

j  its  provisions  local  to  New 


York  city  was  general  in  its  title: 
"An  act  to  preserve  the  public 
peace  and  order  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  commonly  called  Sun- 
day." It  was  held  sufficient  to 
cover  provisions  prohibiting  dra- 
matic performances  on  that  day, 
since  the  cessation  of  such  enter- 
tainments was  one  of  the  particu- 
lars goin;*  to  make  up  the  public 
peace  and  good  order. 

85  People  v.  Com'rs  of  Highways, 
53  Barb.  70. 

86  Coutieri  v.  New  Brunswick,  44 
N.  J.  L.  58. 

87  Moses  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  52  Ala.  198. 
SBTJnion  Passenger  liy.  Co. 's  Ap- 
peal, 81*  Pa  St.  91;  West  Phila.  K. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  209 

An  act  entitled  "An  act  to  protect  the  planting  and  cul- 
tivating of  oysters  in  the  tidewaters  of  this  state,"  which 
excluded  certain  waters  from  its  operation,  was  held  void, 
because  the  title  indicated  an  intent  to  legislate  as  to  all 
tidewaters,  and  hence  was  misleading.89  So  "  An  act  relat- 
ing to  the  cost  of  improving  sidewalks  in  the  cities  of  this 
state,"  which,  in  the  body  of  the  act,  was  made  to  apply 
only  to  cities  of  the  third  class,  was  held  void  for  a  similar 
reason.  In  giving  their  decision  in  this  case  the  court  of 
errors  and  appeals  of  New  Jersey  say:  "The  title  states 
that  the  object  is  to  legislate  for  the  cities  of  the  state  as  a 
class.  The  act  excludes  from  its  operation  all  of  these  cities 
except  those  of  the  third  class.  No  one,  on  reading  the 
title,  could  reasonably  understand  that  the  body  of  the  act 
was  to  have  so  limited  an  effect."  90 

Upon  like  grounds  the  following  acts  were  held  invalid: 
"An  act  to  authorize  the  city  of  Milwaukee  to  change  the 
grade  of  streets,"  which  applied  only  to  a  limited  district 
of  forty -nine  blocks;91  "An  act  making  it  a  misdemeanor 
to  issue  trading  stamps  and  other  devices,"  which,  while 
purporting  to  apply  to  all  classes,  exempted  certain  classes 
from  its  operation.92 

These  decisions  have  been  referred  to  in  detail  because  no 
general  rule  on  the  subject  can  safely  be  formulated.  This 
will  be  manifest  when  the  cases  cited  in  this  section  are 
compared  with  those  cited  in  the  following  section. 

§  124.  The  title  may  be  broader  and  more  compre- 
hensive than  the  act. —  An  act  of  Missouri  entitled  "Ae 
act  to  establish  and  maintain  a  uniform  course  of  text 
books  to  be  used  in  all  the  public  schools  within  this  state, 
and  to  reduce  the  price  thereof,"  excluded  from  its  opera- 

R.  Co.  v.  Union  R.  R.  Co.,  9  Phila.        91  An derton  v.  Milwaukee,  82  Wis. 

495.  279,  52  N.  W.  95,  15  L.  R.  A.  830. 

89  State  v.  Steelman,  66  N.  J.  U        92  State  v.  Walker,  105  La.  492,  29 

518,  49  Atl.  978.  So.  973.     See  also  Allardt  v.  People, 

so  Beverly  v.  Wain,  57  N.  J.  L.     197  111.  501,  64  N.  E.  533. 
143,  144,  30  Atl.  545. 
14 


TITLE    OK    ACTS. 

turn  oitiea  and  districts  having  over  ono  hundred  thousand 
population.  The  aot  was  held  valid  and  tho  court  in  lane 
Bays:  "The  constitution  docs  not  say  that  the  title  shall  be 
as  narrow  as  the  act.     What  it  says  on  this  point  is,  that 

single  subject  shall  be  clearly  expressed  in  the  title. 
Tho  fact,  therefore,  that  the  title  is  broader  than  the  act  can 
be  no  objection,  unless  the  title  is  comprehensive  enough  to 
admit  of  disconnected  and  incongruous  subjects."  93    In  this 

\\\a  act  in  question  expressly  purported  by  its  title  to 
apply  to  all  the  public  schools  within  the  state  and  yet  ex- 
cepted a  very  important  class.  Like  rulings  were  made 
upon  the  following  titles  and  acts:  An  act  purporting  by 
its  title  to  relate  to  the  fees  of  county  officers  generally, 
but  limited  in  the  purview  to  counties  of  over  fifty  thou- 
sand inhabitants;94  an  act  entitled:  "An  act  extending 
the  time  in  which  distraint  and  sale  may  be  made  for 
taxes/'  and  limited  in  its  operation  to  certain  counties  and 
to  the  taxes  for  certain  years;95  "An  act  to  encourage  and 
provide  for  a  general  vaccination  in  the  state  of  California," 
which  applied  only  to  school  children;98  an  act  to  protect 
the  health  of  domestic  animals,  which  related  to  dairy  cows 
and  neat  cattle  only;97  "An  act  to  prevent  the  fraudulent 
transfer  of  personal  property,"  which  applied  only  to  mort- 
gagors of  personal  property.  "The  mere  fact,"  says  the 
court,  "  that  the  legislature  chose  a  title  much  more  compre- 

93  State  v.  Bronson,  115  Mo.  271,  general    class    in   the    state,   viz., 

\V.  H25,  scholars  of  the  public  schools  and 

ite  v.  Frazier,  30   Ore.   178,  those  who  desire  to  become  such. 

0.  5.  But  we  think,  under  the  rules  of 

■Eldowney  v.  Wyatt,  44  W.  construction  above  stated,  that  the 

Va.  711,  30  S.  E.  239, 45  L.  R.  A.  609.  term    'general,'   in    the   title,   ap- 

96  Abeel  v.  Clark,  84  Cal.  226,  24  plies  to  that  general  class  specified 

Pac.  383.     The  court  says:  "It  is  in  the  act;  and  that   neither  the 

true  that  the  term  'vaccination,'  legislature  nor  the  public  could  be 

in  the  title,  is  qualified  by  the  ad-  misled  by  the  manner  in  which 

jective  'general.'  which  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  act  is  expressed 

1   enough   to  include   all  the  in  the  title."    p.  229. 

>  of  the  state;  while  the  body  97  Commonwealth  v.  Cooper,  12 

of  the  act  relal                  a  <  •  rtain  Pa.  I)ist.  Ct.  199. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  211 

hensive  than  the  matter  covered  by  the  body  of  the  act  can- 
not be  objectionable."  98  The  supreme  court  of  Alabama 
says:  "  The  object  of  this  provision  of  the  constitution  was 
to  prevent  surprise  and  fraud  in  passing  laws  under  mis- 
leading titles.  It  should  not,  therefore,  be  construed  so  as 
to  defeat,  by  too  technical  an  application,  legislation  not 
clearly  within  the  evil  aimed  at.  If  the  title  of  an  act  is 
single  and  directs  the  mind  to  the  subject  of  the  law  in  a 
way  calculated  to  direct  the  attention  truly  to  the  matter 
which  is  proposed  to  be  legislated  upon,  the  object  of  the 
provision  is  satisfied.  In  such  case  the  generality  of  a  title, 
not  defining  the  particulars  of  the  proposed  legislation, 
would  be  more  apt  to  excite  general  attention  than  other- 
wise, since  the  general  words  would  give  warning  that 
everything  within  their  limits  might  be  affected  and  thus 
draw  the  attention  of  the  whole  body  of  legislators,  while 
narrower  words  would  only  interest  those  concerned  with 
the  matters  specially  named."99 

Many  cases  hold  that  the  title  may  be  broader  than  the 
act,  that  an  act  need  not  cover  all  the  ground  that  might 
be  covered  under  its  title,  and  need  not  legislate  respecting 
all  the  classes,  persons,  objects  or  things  embraced  or  com- 
prehended by  the  title.1     "An  act  to  prohibit  book-making 

98  State  v.  Heldenbrand,  62  Neb.  Johnson  v.  Asbury  Park,  60  N.  J. 
136,  142,  87  N.  W.  25,  89  Am.  St.  L.  427,  39  Atl.  693;  In  re  De  Vau- 
Rep.  743.  cene,  31  How.  Pr.   337;  Yeager  v. 

99  Mobile  Transportation  Co.  v.  Weaver,  64  Pa.  St.  427;  State  v. 
Mobile,  128  Ala.  335,  347,  30  So.  645,  Becker,  3  S.  D.  29,  51  N.  W.  1018; 
86  Am.  St.  Rep.  143.  Garvin  v.  State,  13  Lea,  162;  State 

iMollie  Gibson  Consol.  Min.  &  v.  Schlitz  Brewing  Co.,  104  Term. 
Mil.  Co.  v.  Sharp,  23  Colo.  259,  47  715,  59  S.  W.  1033,  78  Am.  St.  Rep. 
,Pac.  266;  Johnson  v.  People,  83  111.  941;  Howlett  v.  Cheetham,  17 
431;  Ash  v.  Thorp,  65  Kan.  60,  68  Wash.  626,  50  Pac.  522.  "We  are 
Pac.  1067;  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  aware  of  no  adjudicated  case,  and 
158;  Baltimore  v.  Keeley  Inst.,  81  it  is  believed  that  none  can  be 
Md.  106,  31  Atl.  437,  27  L.  R.  A.  646;  found,  that  holds  an  act  of  the  leg- 
Luther  v.  Saylor,  8  Mo.  App.  424;  islature  obnoxious  to  this  section 
State  v.  Anaconda  Copper  Min.  Co.,  of  the  constitution  simply  on  the 
23  Mont.  498,  59  Pac.  854;  Coutieri  ground  that  the  provisions  of  the 
v.  New  Brunswick,  44  N.  J.  L.  58;  act  do  not  embrace  or  cover  the 


i  u  i  B    OF    A.  is. 

and  pool-selling"  prohibited  book-making  and  pool-selling 
rtain  events  to  take  plaoe  outside  of  the  state  and  on 

political  nominations  and  elections  wherever  held.  The  acl 
was  be  1  valid  and,  on  the  point  in  question,  the  court  says: 
"But  the  act  before  the  court  is  prohibitory  in  its  entire 
Bcope  and  purpose  It  does  not  prohibit  all  book-making 
and  pool-selling  on  the  events  named,  but  as  far  as  it  at- 
tempts to  deal  with  the  subject  it  prohibits  them.  The  act  is 
not,  it  is  true,  as  broad  as  its  title,  but  it  is  germane  to 
and  included  in  it.  Logically,  some  prohibition  is  included 
in  all  prohibition.  Logically,  the  title  does  contain  thesub- 
of  the  act.  The  title  does  not  give  notice  how  the 
prohibition  is  to  be  effected,  or  to  what  extent,  whether 
partially  or  wholly,  whether  by  making  the  act  prohibited 
a  felony,  or  a  misdemeanor;  but  it  does  give  the  informa- 
tion that  the  act  is  for  the  prohibition  of  book-making  and 
pool-selling."2  Also  that  "the  title  of  an  act  may  contain 
'  term,  and  the  body  of  the  enactment  be  specific, 
and  the  act  be  upheld,  provided  the  enactment  is  germane 
to  and  included  in  the  subject  of  the  title."' 

25.  misleading  titles.—  The  case  of  Anderson  v.  Hill3 
involves  an  act  with  a  misleading  title.  The  title  of  the 
act  is  "  to  provide  for  the  straightening  or  otherwise  deep- 
ening the  channel  of  the  Dowagiac  river  in  Van  Buren 
county."  There  were  three  sections  in  the  act.  They  au- 
thorized either  or  both  of  the  two  named  townships  in  Van 
lkiren  county  to  vote  money  to  be  raised  by  tax,  and  the 
expenditure  of  it  "  for  such  river  improvements."  It  was 
held  unconstitutional  in  part  on  the  ground  that  "  the  ob- 

full  scope  of  appropriate  legislation  save  the  act  from  being  unconsti- 

jsible  under  its  title."    Pow  tutionaL"    Boyer  v.  Grand  Rapida 

ere  v.  McKenzie,  90  Tenn.  167,  178,  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  124  Mich.  455,  83  N. 

W.  559.     And   the   supreme  W.  124,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  33& 

court  of  Michigan  says  that  "we  2 State   v.  Burgdoerfer,    107  Mo. 

do  not  underet  rod  the  body  of  the  1,  27,  28,  17  S.W.  G46. 

act  must  contain  all  the  provisions  354  Mich.  477. 
it  might  contain  under  the  title  to 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  213 

ject  "  was  not  sufficiently  stated  in  the  title.  The  court 
say:  "The  state  having  the  right  to  engage  in  and  carry 
on  works  of  internal  improvement  by  the  expenditure  of 
grants  to  the  state  of  lands,  the  obvious  inference  from  the 
language  of  the  title  would  be  that  the  state  proposed  to  pro- 
vide for  the  straightening  or  deepening  of  the  channel  of 
the  Dowagiac  river  by  doing  what  they  constitutionally 
could  do,  namely,  by  appropriating  land  for  that  purpose. 
This  is  the  method  she  has  provided  for  making  her  internal 
improvements  since  1850.  In  view  of  the  constitutional 
restriction,  and  the  long  course  of  practice  pursued  by  the 
state  in  making  internal  improvements,  would  any  one  be 
justified  in  assuming  that  the  language  in  the  title  of  this 
act  was  intended  to  embrace  the  object  of  permitting  the 
legal  voters  of  the  township  of  Decatur  to  vote  a  tax  upon 
the  taxable  property  of  the  township  to  aid  the  state  in 
carrying  on  the  work  of  straightening  and  deepening  the 
channel  of  the  Dowagiac  river?  Yet  such  was  the  real  as 
well  as  the  principal  object  of  the  act.  Without  this  legis- 
lation the  state  possessed  full  power,  acting  under  its  state 
board  of  control  of  swamp  lands,  to  make  the  improve- 
ment named  in  the  title  of  the  act.  The  state  has  never 
acted  and  has  no  occasion  to  act  under  the  provisions  of  act 
Xo.  323  [the  act  in  question].  The  circuit  court,  however, 
finds  as  a  fact  that  the  Dowagiac  state  ditch  mentioned  in 
the  contract  [for  work  on  the  ditch  entered  into  with  the 
state]  was  the  same  improvement  as  that  contemplated  by 
the  special  act  No.  323.  If  this  be  true,  then  clearly  the 
object  of  the  act  was  not  expressed  in  the  title  and  could 
not  be  otherwise  than  in  some  manner  indicating  that  the 
object  of  the  law  was  to  authorize  or  enable  the  townships 
of  Decatur  and  Hamilton  to  aid  the  state  in  straightening 
or  deepening  the  channel  of  the  Dowagiac  river  in  the 
county  of  Van  Buren.  As  well  might  an  act  to  authorize 
the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  one  point  to  another  in- 
clude provisions  for  municipalities  along  its  route  to  vote 


a  14 


Til' I  B    OF   ACTS. 


aid  in  its  construction,  without  violating  the  constitution."4 
When  the  title  is  misleading  and  deceptive  the  act  is  void.5 
126  91).  The  title  should  accompany  a  bill  In  its 
passage  through  the  legislature.— It  is  during  the  pas- 
B&se  of  a  bill  that  its  title  is  intended  by  the  constitution  to 
impart  information  to  the  public  and  to  members  of  the 
ature  of  the  general  subject  of  legislation.     To  effect- 
uate that  intent  the  title  should  accompany  the  bill  in  all 
-  through  the  process  of  enactment.     As  stated  by 
Simonton,  P.  J.:  "If  a  bill  can  be  passed  with  a  title  which 
does  not  denote  its  subject,  and  after  its  passage  the  title 
can  be  amended  so  as  for  the  first  time  to  express  its  pur- 
pose, the  constitutional  provision  is  of  little  value."6     Only 


«See  Brooks  v.  Ilydorn,  76  Mich. 

J  N.  W.  1122;  State  v.  Com'rs, 
•11  Kan  630,  21  Pac.  601. 
5  St:it.>  v.  Sholl,  58  Kan.  507,  49 

068;  Brooks  v.  Hydorn,  76 
Mich.  273,  43  N.  W.  1122;  New 
York  &  Greenwood  Lake  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Montclair,  47  X.  J.  Eq.  591,  21  AtL 
493;  Sneath  r.  Mayer,  64  N.  J.  L. 

At!.  9S3:InreCarbondale,etc. 
Road  Co.,  3  Pa  Co.  Ct.  4C0;  Little 


provisions  of  the  constitution  be- 
yond its  express  terms  in  this  re- 
spect. If  the  object  of  the  act  as 
passed  is  fully  expressed  in  its  title, 
the  form  or  status  of  such  title  at 
its  introduction,  or  during  any  of 
the  stages  of  legislation  before  it 
becomes  a  law,  is  immaterial.  To 
hold  otherwise  would,  in  many 
cases,  prevent  any  alteration  or 
amendment  of  a  bill  after  itsintro- 


Equemunk,  etc.  Turnpike  Co.,  2  Pa,     duction,  as,  in  legislative  practice, 


i.  632;  Blader  v.  Water  Com'rs, 

Mich.  366,  81  N.  W.  271. 
6  Commonwealth   v.  Martin,  107 
Pa   St.   185.     In  Attorney-General 
v.  Rice,  64  Mich.  385,  31  N.  W.  203, 
it  appeared  that  to  an  act  to  organ- 
ize the  township  of  Ironwood,  in 
the  county  of  Ontonagon,  it  was 
objected  that  it  had  been  substi- 
tuted after  the  time  for  introduc- 
ing D'  w    bills  had   expired   for  a 
bill  entitled  "An  act  to  or- 
.--••  the  town-hip  of  Au  Train:" 
that  therefore  the  title  of  the  bill 
I  did  not  express  the 
t  of  the  act  as  passed.    The 
court  say:  "  We  cannot  extend  the 


it  frequently  becomes  necessary  to 
amend  the  title  as  introduced  in 
order  to  conform  to  changes  in  the 
bill.  The  title  to  a  bill  is  usually 
adopted  after  it  has  passed  the 
house,  and  it  is  not  an  essential 
part  of  a  bill,  although  it  is  of  a 
law.  Larrison  v.  Peoria,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  77  111.  17."  The  facts  stated  in 
the  contention  were  not  accepted 
by  the  court,  and  it  was  held  that 
the  journals  not  showing  the  facts, 
parol  evidence  was  not  admissible. 
People  v.  McElroy,  72  Mich.  446,  40 
N.  W.  750;  Brooks  v.  Hydorn,  76 
Mich.  273,  42  N.  W.  1122. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  215 

such  portions  of  a  bill  as  were  included  in  the  subject  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  title  when  it  passed  the  two  houses7  and 
when  approved  by  the  governor 8  will  acquire  the  force  of 
law.  A  mere  clerical  mistake  or  a  mere  clerical  change,  not 
altering  the  sense  of  the  title,  will  be  disregarded.9  The 
above  remains  as  in  the  first  edition.  But  we  believe  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  constitutional  provision  as  to  title 
to  prevent  the  legislature  from  amending  or  changing  both 
the  bill  and  its  title  in  any  manner  they  see  fit,  between  its 
introduction  and  its  passage.  It  is  the  act,  or  law,  or  bill 
passed,  that  must  embrace  but  one  subject,  which  subject 
must  be  expressed  in  the  title.10  "Whether  the  title  of  the 
bill  as  passed  is  germane  to  the  title  of  the  bill  as  introduced 
is  not  the  question.  If  the  subject  dealt  with  by  the  bill  as 
passed  is  expressed  in  or  germane  to  the  subject  expressed  in 
the  title  adopted  with  the  hill  as  part  thereof,  it  complies  with 
the  constitutional  requirement  whether  it  be  like  or  unlike 
the  title  by  which  the  bill  was  introduced."  ll  Of  course 
the  two  houses  must  concur  in  substantially  the  same  title, 
and  the  bill  approved  must  have  substantially  the  same  title 
as  that  passed.12 

§  127  (92).  Title  and  act  liberally  construed  to  sustain 
legislation.13 — In  cases  not  clearly  within  the  mischief  in- 
tended to  be  remedied  by  requiring  the  subject  or  object  of 
an  act  to  be  single  and  expressed  in  the  title,  legislation  will 
not  be  adjudged  void  on  any  nice  or  hypercritical  interpreta- 
tion.14    Sound  policy  and  legislative  convenience  dictate  a 

?  Binz  v.  Weber,  81  111.  288.  »  State  v.  Hooker,  36  Fla,  358,  18 

8  Stein  v.  Leeper,  78  Ala.  517.  So.  767. 

spiummer  v.  People,  74  111.  361;  ™  Weis  v.  Ashley,  59  Neb.  494,  81 

People  v.  Supervisors,  16  Mich.  254.  N.   W.   318,  80  Am.  St.    Rep.  704; 

10  Attorney-General   v.  Rice,   64  Webster  v.  Hastings,  59  Neb.  563, 

Mich.  385,  31  N.  W.  203;  State  v.  81  N.  W.  510;  State  v.  Green,  36 

Doherty,  3  Idaho,  384,  29  Pac.  855;  Fla.  154,  18  So.  334;  and  see  ante, 

Price  v.  Moundsville,  43  W.  Va.  523,  §  60. 

27  S.  E.  218,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  878;  "See  ante,  %  121. 

Cutting  v.Kansas  City  Stock  Yards  l*Gillitt  v.   McCarthy,  34  Minn. 

Co.,  82  Fed.  839;  Common  Council  318,    25    N.    W.  637;   St.   Louis  v. 

v.  Schmid,  128  Mich.  379,  87  N.  W.  Green,  7  Mo.  App.  468;  Supervisors 

383,  92  Am.  St.  Rep.  468.  v.  Heenan,  2  Minn.  330;  People  v. 


916  TITLE    OF    a  i 

liberal  construction  of  the  title  and  Bubjed  matter  of  stat- 
utes to  maintain  their  validity;  infraction  of  this  constitu- 
tional clause  must  be  plain  and  obvious  to  bo  reoognized  as 
fatal.  The  Bupreme  court  of  Minnesota  says:  "Every  rea- 
sonable presumption  should  be  in  favor  of  the  title,  which 
should  be  more  liberally  construed  than  the  body  of  the  law, 
giving  to  the  general  words  in  such  title  paramount  weight. 
It  is  not  essential  that  the  best  or  even  an  accurate  title  be 
employed,  if  it  be  suggestive  in  any  sense  of  the  legislative 
purpose.  The  remedy  to  be  secured  and  mischief  avoided  is 
the  best  test  of  a  sufficient  title,  which  is  to  prevent  it  from 
being  made  a  cloak  or  artifice  to  distract  attention  from  the 
substance  of  the  act  itself.  The  title,  if  objected  to,  should 
be  aided  if  possible  by  resort  to  the  body  of  the  act,  to  show 
that  it  was  not  intruded  by  such  title  to  mislead  the  legis- 
lature or  the  people,  nor  distract  their  attention  from  its 
active  measures."  ls  Similar  expressions  of  opinion  will 
be  found  in  many  cases.16  If  the  words  in  a  title,  taken  in 
any  sense  or  meaning  which  they  will  bear,  are  sufficient  to 
cover  the  provisions  of  the  act,  the  act  will  be  sustained, 
though  the  meaning  so  given  the  words  may  not  be  the 

Parks,    58   Cal.    635;    Rath  bono  v.  not  wholly  inappropriate  or  foreign 

Hopper,  57  Kan.  340,45  Pac.  610,34  to  the  subject  of  the  statute,  we 

L.   R   A.  074;  Stewart   v.  Thomas,  would  but  qui bble  upon  a  point  of 

64  Kan.   511,  68  Pac.  70;  State  v.  mere  phraseology   to    defeat    the 

Asbury  Park,  58  N.  J.  L.  604,  33  legislative  will  because,  in  the  va- 

Atl.  850.  riance  of  opinion,  the  best  words 

15  State  v.  Board  of  Control,  85  were  not  adopted  to  indicate  and 

Minn.  165, 88 N.W.  533.    In  this  case  point    attention   to    its    purpose." 

thetitleof  the  act  indicated  that  its  p.  180. 

purpose   was  "to  provide  for  the        1(iEx  parte  Pferrmann,  134  Cal. 

management  and   control   of  the  143,  66  Pac.  205;  Maule  Coal  Co.  v. 

charitable,  reformatory  and  penal  Parthenheimer,  155  Ind.  100,  55  N. 

institutions   of   the   state."     The  E.  751;  Affholder  v.  State,  51  Nefy 

court  held  that  this  was  sufficient  91,  70  N.  W.  544;  State  v.  Becker, 

to  cover  provisions  as   to  normal  3  S.  D.  29,51  N.  VV.  1018;  Julien  v. 

.  -  tying  that  "if  we  nullify  Model  B.  L.  &  L  Ass'n,  116  Wis.  79, 

a  law  because  a  definition  used  in  92  N.  W.  561. 
ibly  faulty,  though 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  217 

most  obvious  or  common.17  The  same  rules  of  construction 
apply  to  titles  or  to  other  parts  of  a  statute,  but  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  these  rules  of  construction  are  servants 
and  not  masters,  and  should  not  be  applied  to  defeat  the 
legislative  intent.18  "An  act  to  abolish  survivorship  in  joint 
tenancy"  was  held  broad  enough  to  include  estates  in  en- 
tirety." 19  The  word  "  trade,"  in  the  title  of  an  anti-trust 
act,  may  include  insurance.20  "An  act  to  provide  cheaper 
text-books  and  for  district  ownership  of  the  same"  was  held 
to  include  all  school  supplies.21 

§  128.  Same  —  Illustrations.  —  An  act  in  relation  to 
grading  Eighth  avenue  in  a  city  was  held  a  subject  broad 
enough  for  provisions  to  make  the  grade  of  intersecting 
streets  conform  to  the  altered  grade  of  that  avenue.22  An 
act,  among  other  things,  for  "laying  out"  certain  portions 
of  a  city,  and  to  provide  means  therefor,  may  contain 
provisions  for  opening  streets.  In  so  ruling  the  court  say: 
"The  words 'laying  out 'must  be  interpreted  in  a  broad 
and  liberal  sense,  .  .  .  and  may  be  regarded  as  cover- 
ing the  opening,  for  without  such  opening  the  laying  out 

17  Id.;  Meul  v.  People,  198  111.  258,  children  attending  school.  .  .  . 
64  N.  E.  1106;  In  re  Pinckney,  47  We  do  not  think  the  term  'text- 
Kan.  89,  27  Pac.  179;  Stewart  v.  books' should  be  given  a  technical 
Thomas,  64  Kan.  511,  68  Pac.  70;  meaning,  but  that  it  is  compre- 
State  v.  Northampton  Tp.,  52  N.  J.  hensive  enough  to  and  does  in- 
L.  496,  19  Atl.  975.  elude  globes,   maps,   charts,  pens. 

18  Winters  v.  Duluth,  82  Minn,  ink,  paper,  etc.,  and  all  other  ap- 
127,  84  N.  W.  788.  paratus  and  appliances  which  are 

19  Stewart  v.  Thomas,  64  Kan.  proper  to  be  used  in  the  schools  in 
511,  68  Pac.  70;  overruling  Howard  instructing  the  youth;  and  we  con- 
v.  Schneider,  10  Kan.  App.  137,  62  elude,  therefore,  that  the  act  under 
Pac.  435.  consideration  is  not  broader  than 

20  In  re  Pinckney,  47  Kan.  89,  27  its  title,  and  that  the  term  'school 
Pac.  179.  supplies,'  found  in  the  tenth  sec- 

21  Aff holder  v.  State,  51  Neb.  91,  tion  of  the  act,  is  not  foreign  to 
70  N.  W.  544.  The  court  says:  the  term 'text-books' found  in  the 
"  The  general  object  of  the  act  title  of  the  act,  but  is  germane  to, 
under  consideration  was  to  require  and  comprehended  and  included 
school  districts,  at  public  expense,  within,  the  term  'text-books.'"  p.  93. 
to  furnish  text-books  for  the  use  of  22  In  re  Blodgett,  27  Hun,  12. 


'J  Is  in  i.K   OF   Aims. 

d  be  of  no  avail." M  An  aot "  to  indemnify  the  owners 
of  sheep  in  case  of  damage  oommitted  by  dogs,"  properly 
contained  a  provision  imposing  a  license  fee  upon  tho  own- 
ers and  keepers  of  does;24  and  an  act  "  to  regulate  the  fore- 
closure of  real  estate,"  a  provision  that  the  right  of  redemp- 
tion might  be  waived,38  as  well  as  provisions  to  otherwise 
ite  rights  of  redemption  from  sales  under  executions, 
judgments,  orders  or  decrees  of  courts,  and  under  mort- 
gages by  advertisement;26  an  act  "for  the  registration  of  all 
adult  persons  in  each  count}',"  a  provision  that  whenever  it 
should  be  necessary  to  ascertain  the  number  of  adult  per- 
sons with  a  view  to  any  action  by  county  commissioners  or 
other  county  officers,  the  list  on  file  should  be  taken  as  con- 
clusive on  that  subject.27  An  act  "to  repeal  all  existing 
laws,  rules  and  provisions  of  law  restricting  or  control- 
ling the  right  of  a  party  to  agree  with  an  attorney,  solicitor 
or  counselor  for  his  compensation,  and  to  more  accurately 
lix  and  determine  the  costs  to  be  allowed  to  the  prevailing 
parties  in  suits  at  law  in  the  circuit  court,"  contained  pro- 
visions for  the  taxation  of  costs  in  suits  at  law,  including 
attorneys'  fees,  and  also  permitting  parties  to  suits  to  make 
such  private  arrangements  with  their  attorneys  for  carrying 
on  suits  as  they  might  agree  upon.  The  court  held  that 
the  object  of  the  act  was  to  settle  and  declare  the  law  of 
compensation  for  skill  and  services  in  suits  at  law  in  the 
circuit  court,  and  was  not  multifarious.23  Acts  entitled  to 
regulate  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor  will  justify  provis- 

2:5  In  re  Dept.  Pub.  Parks,  86  N.  Y.  clearly  beyond  the  scope  of  the 

4:j?.  title. 

24  Cole  v.  Hall,  103  111.  30.  2«  Gillitt  v.  McCarthy,  34  Minn, 

tkinson  v.  Dully.  10  Minn.  49.  318,  25  N.  W.  037. 

In  Tuttle  v.Strout,  7  id.  465,  82  Am.  27  Eureka  v.  Davis,  21  Kan.  580. 

Dec.  108,  under  an  act  "  for  a  home-  28  Inkster  v.  Carver,  16  Mich.  484. 

stead  exemption,"  exemptions  of  In  Rowland   Coal  &  Iron   "Works 

personal  property  having  no  spe-  v.  Brown,  13  T3ush,  681,  it  was  held 

cial  connection  with  land  occupied  that  an  act  professing  by  its  title 

a^  a  homestead    were   sustained,  to  provide  for  establishing  a  erim- 

Such     provisions    would     appear  iiml  court  is  not  so  restricted  by 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  219 

ions  against  giving  it  away  to  consumers.29  An  act  "  to 
regulate  the  sale  of  opium  and  suppress  opium  dens  "  was 
held  sufficient  to  cover  provisions  forbidding  a  sale  or  gift 
of  opium  to  anyone  but  a  druggist  or  practicing  physician, 
except  on  the  prescription  of  a  practicing  physician.30  Ex- 
penses may  be  provided  for  under  a  title  relating  to  "debts." 31 
An  act  with  a  general  title  for  relief  of  a  named  railroad 
company  was  held  properly  to  have  authorized  the  exten- 
sion of  its  tracks  through  certain  streets  and  avenues  of  a 
city,  and  to  consolidate  with  any  other  company  and  thus 
to  form  a  new.  one;  that  an  act  for  relief  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany must  be  one  to  remove  some  restriction  upon  its  pow- 
ers, or  to  give  it  greater  powers.32  Though  a  title  be  broad  it 
will  be  restrained  by  construction  to  lawful  purposes.33  An 
act  "  to  authorize  the  town  of  P.  to  raise  money  to  construct  a 
dock  "  was  held  broad  enough  for  provisions  to  maintain  it 
afterwards  and  to  collect  wharfage.34  The  court  said:  "One 
purpose  of  the  constitutional  provision  referred  to  was  to 
prevent  secret  or  fraudulent  legislation,  or  people  from  being 
misled  by  the  title.  .  .  .  And  that  reasonable  notice  of 
the  object  of  the  bill  should  be  given  by  the  title;  "  and  in 
referring  to  the  foregoing  title,  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject-matter, used  this  language :  "  It  is  true  that  strictly  the 
maintenance  of  this  work,  or  the  power  to  keep  and  main- 
tain the  same  in  good  repair  at  the  expense  of  the  town,  is 
not  identically  the  same  as  'constructing  the  dock,'  spoken 
of  in  the  title.  No  one,  however,  could  imagine  that  the 
dock  was  to  be  abandoned  by  the  town  the  moment  its 

this  title  that  the  body  of  the  act  30Ex  parte  Yung  Jon,  28  Fed. 

may  not  confer  also  some  other  Rep.  308. 

than   criminal   jurisdiction.      The  31  State  v.  State  Auditor,  32  La. 

opinion  construes  the  word  crim-  Ann.  89. 

inal  as  merely  part  of  the  name  of  32In  re  Prospect  Park,  etc.  R  R 

the  court,  and  being  so  used  does  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  371. 

not  preclude  conferring    in  part  3i  Allor  v.  Board,  etc.,  43  Midi.  7G, 

civil  jurisdiction.  4  N.  W.  492. 

23  Parkinson  v.  State,  14  Md.  184,  M  Town  of  Pelham  v.  Woolsey,  1G 

74  Am.  Dec.  522;  Williams  v.  State,  Fed.  418. 
48  Ind.  300. 


ail  1.1     OF    Acts. 

original  construction  was  completed.  Subsequent  repair  is 
in  the  nature  of  the  rase;  and  authority  to  con- 
struct tlif  dock  would  therefore,  in  a  general  sense,  seem  to 
imply  and  include'  the  power  to  keep  it  constructed  by 
means  of  necessary  repairs."  The  provision  for  charging 
was  connected  with  the  construction  as  a  means  of 
Qg  the  money  to  pay  the  cost.  A  gas  company  was 
held  to  be  a  manufacturing  company  within  the  title  of  an 
act."  In  "an  ait  to  define  the  county  line  of  Estill  county," 
it  was  held  that  "to  define  "  might  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
"  to  fix,"  "  to  establish,"  and  that  a  provision  detaching 
territory,  not  in  dispute,  from  Estill  county  and  adding  it 
to  another  was  within  the  title.36  "Damages"  may  mean 
and  include  "injuries."37  An  act  indicated  by  its  title  that 
it  was  to  make  provision  for  the  unlawful  levy  and  collec- 
tion of  public  revenue.  The  act  in  fact  provided  a  remedy 
for  such  unlawful  levy  and  collection.  It  was  held  to  be 
expressed  by  the  title,  the  word  "for"  being  taken  in  the 
sense  of  "in  relation  to,"  "with  respect  to."38  Many 
other  illustrations  will  be  found  in  the  later  sections  of  this 
chapter. 

§  129  (93).  The  subject  or  object  stated  generally  in 
the  title  includes  incidents  and  subsidiary  details. —  It 
appears  already  from  wrhat  has  been  said  in  the  preceding 
ons  and  the  cases  which  have  been  cited,  that  the  con- 
stitutional provision  in  question  permits  an  announcement 
of  the  subject  in  general  terms  in  the  title  of  an  act;  that  to 
facilitate  legislation  which  is  intended  to  be  germane  to  that 
subject,  a  very  liberal  construction  is  adopted,  both  of  the 
constitutional  requirement  and  of  legislation  affected  by  it, 
to  sustain  all  laws  not  within  the  mischief  intended  to  be 
remedied.  It  only  remains  to  illustrate  some  general  prin- 
ciples which  the  course  of  decision  has  established  for  de- 

Water  Co.  v.  Downing-  "Colorado  Milling  &  El.  Co.  v. 

town,  193  Pa.  St.  255,  1 1  Atl.  282.  Mitchell,  26  Colo.  284,  58  Pac.  28. 

*•  Walters  v.  Richardson,  0:j  Ky.  38  Western    Ranches    v.    Custer 

87 1,  20  &  W.  279.  County,  28  Mont.  278. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


221 


termining  the  singleness  of  legislative  subjects;  whether 
the  provisions  under  them  are  congruous  and  pertinent;  and 
the  consequences  of  a  total  or  partial  departure  from  the 
constitutional  injunction. 

"Where  the  title  of  a  legislative  act  expresses  a  general 
subject  or  purpose  which  is  single,  all  matters  which  are 
naturally  and  reasonably  connected  with  it,  and  all  meas- 
ures which  will  or  may  facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  the 
purpose  so  stated,  are  properly  included  in  the  act,  and  are 
germane  to  its  title.39    The  degree  of  relationship  of  each 


39  Montgomery  M.  B.  &  L.  Ass'n 
v.  Robinson,  69  Ala.  413;  Alabama 
Great  So.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  124  Ala. 
253,  27  So.  19,  82  Am.  St.  Rep.  1(56; 
Golden  Canal  Co.  v.  Bright,  8  Colo. 
144;  People  v.  Goddard,  8  Colo.  432; 
People  v.  Wright,  30  Colo.  439,  71 
Pac.  365;  Allen  v.  Teson,  50  Ga.  374; 
Black  v.  Cohen,  52  Ga.  621;  Gold- 
smith v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co.,  02  Ga. 
485;  Halleman  v.  Halleman,  65  Ga. 
476:  Seay  v.  Bank  of  Rome,  66  Ga. 
609;  Smith  v.  Bohler,  72  Ga.  546; 
Brown  v.  State,  73  Ga.  38;  People 
v.  Brislin,  80  111.  423;  Abington  v. 
Cabeen,  106  111.  200;  McChesney  v. 
Chicago,  159  111.  223,  42  N.  E.  894; 
Central  Plank  Road  Co.  v.  Hanna- 
man,  22  Ind.  484;  McCaslin  v.  State, 
44  Ind  151;  Shipley  v.  Terre  Haute, 
74  Ind.  297;  Ross  v.  Davis,  97  Ind. 
79;  Wishmier  v.  State,  97  Ind.  160; 
Crawfordsville,  etc.  T.  Co.  v. 
Fletcher,  104  Ind.  97,  2  N.  E.  243; 
State  v.  Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439,  44 
N.  E.  469;  Maule  Coal  Co.  v.  Par- 
thenheimer,  155  Ind.  100,  55  N.  E. 
751;  State  v.  Squiers,  26  Iowa,  345; 
Farmers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Highsmith,  44 
Iowa,  830;  Christie  v.  Life  Indem- 
nity &  Invest.  Co.,  82  Iowa,  360,  48 
N.  W.  94;   Bowman  v.  Cochrill,  6 


Kan.  311;  Wilson  v.  Herink,  64  Kan. 
607,  68  Pac.  72;  Louisville,  etc.  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  165; 
Phillips  v.  Covington,  etc.  Bridge 
Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  219;  Smith  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 8  Bush,  108;  Howland 
Coal  &  Iron  Works  v.  Brown.  13 
Bush,  681;  McArthur  v.  Nelson,  81 
Ky.  67;  Adams  v.  Webster,  26  La. 
Ann.  142;  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Reitz,  50 
Md.  575;  Stevens  v.  State,  89  Md. 
669,  43  Atl.  929;  Atkinson  v.  Duffy, 
16  Minn.  49;  Gillitt  v.  McCarthy, 
34  Minn.  318,  25  N.  W.  637;  Put- 
nam v.  St.  Paul,  75  Minn.  514,  78  N. 
W.  90;  St.  Louis  v.  Tiefel,  42  Mo. 
578;  Ewing  v.  Hoblitzelle,  85  Mo.  64; 
Klein  v.  Kinkead,  16  Nev.  194;  State 
v.  Atherton,  19  Nev.  332, 10  Pac.  901 ; 
Union  v.  Rader,  39  N.  J.  L.  509; 
Campbell  v.  Board,  45  N.  J.  L.  241; 
Daubman  v.  Smith,  47  N.  J.  L.  200; 
Slocum  v.  Neptune,  68  N.  J.  L.  595, 
53  Atl.  301;  Kirkpatrick  v.  New 
Brunswick,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  46;  People 
v.  Commissioners.  47  N.  Y.  501;  In 
re  Mayer,  50  N.  Y.  504;  In  re  De- 
partment of  Public  Works,  86  N. 
Y.  437;  Astor  v.  Arcade  Ry.  Co., 
113  N.  Y.  93,  20  N.  E.  594,  2  L.  R.  A. 
789;  People  v.  Sutphin,  166  N.  Y.  163, 
59  N.  E  770;  Mosier  v.  Hilton,  15 


Tl  1  LB    OF    ACTS. 


lion  is  not  material,  if  it  legitimately  tends  to  the  end 
disclosed  in  the  title.40  Whatever  the  scope  of  the  subject,  it 
comprehends  not  only  its  constituent  parts,  but  its  general 
incidents,  and  those  which  pertain  to  either  of  its  parts,  and 
everything  contributory  to  the  purpose  the  title  expresses 
or  nec<  ssarily  implies.41  This  principle  is  recognized  in  sev- 
eral of  the  constitutions,  which  confine  an  act  to  a  single 
subject,  "and  the  matters  properly  connected  therewith." 

"  The  title  to  a  bill  may  be  general,  and  it  is  not  essential 
that  it  specify  every  clause  in  the  proposed  statute.  It  is 
sufficient  if  they  are  all  referable  and  cognate  to  the  subject 
expressed.  "When  the  subject  is  expressed  in  general  terms, 
everything  which  is  necessary  to  make  a  complete  enact- 
ment in  regard  to  it,  or  which  results  as  a  complement  of 
the  thought  contained  in  the  general  expression,  is  embraced 
in  and  authorized  by  it.  If  the  subject-matter  is  within  the 
of  the  title,  the  constitutional  requirement  is  met."43 


7;    Fishkill  v.  Fishkill.  22 

Barb.  Hit:  In  re  De  Vaucene,  31 

How.  IT  337;  State  v.  N.  D.  Chil- 

me  Soc,  10  N.  D.  493.  88 

N.  W.  273;  State  v.  Shaw,  '-2  Ore. 

39  Pac.  102S:  State  v.  Steele, 

39  Ore.  419,  65  Pac  515;  Seabolt  v. 

Commissioners,  187  Pa.  St.  318,  41 

Atl.  22;  Common  weal  ( I)  v.  Charity 

I  ital,  198  Pa.  St.   270,  47  Atl. 

State  v.  Morgan,  2  S.  D.  32,  48 

N.  \V.  314;   State  v.  McL'onnell,  3 

-State  v.  Whitworth,  SLea, 

Mfg.  Co.  v.  Falls,  90  Tenn. 

16  S.  W.  1045;  State  v.  Yard- 

95  Tenn.  546.  32  s.  W.  481,  31 

L    l;.  A.  056;    English    v.  State,  7 

Tex.  App.  171:  Ingles  v.  Strauss,  91 

Va  209,  21   S.  E.  490;    Maling   v. 

Crummey,5Wash.222,81  Pac 

Sbarpless,  31  Wash.  191,  71 
Pac  137;  Shields  v.  Bennett,  8  W. 
Va  83;  Yellow  River  Imp.  Co.  v. 
Arnold,  40  Wis.  214;  Diana  Shoot- 


ing Club  v.  Lamereux,  114  Wis.  44, 
89  N.  W.  880,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  833; 
Unity  v.  Burrage,  103  U.  S.  117.  26 
L.  Ed.  40"i;  Ackley  School  Dist.  v. 
Hall.  113  U.  S.  135.  5  S.  C.  Rep.  371, 
28  L.  Ed.  954;  Mahomet  v.  Quack- 
enbush,  117  U.  S.  508,  6  S.  C.  Rep. 
858,  29  L.  Ed.  982;  Farmers'  L.  & 
T.  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  24 
Fed.  407;  Skinner  v.  Garnett  Gold 
Mill.  Co.,  96  Fed.  735. 

««  In  re  Mayer.  50  N.  Y.  504. 
«  In  re  Upson,  89  N.  Y.  67. 
«  State  v.  Tibbet,  52  Neb.  228,  71 
N.  W.  990,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  492; 
also  Carson  v.  State,  69  Ala.  235; 
State  v.  Tucker,  46  Ind.  355;  State 
v.  Baum,  33  La,  Ann.  981;  McGrath 
v.  State,  46  Md.  633;  St,  Louis  v. 
Green,  7  Mo.  App.  468;  Floyd  v. 
Perrin,  30  S.  C.  1;  Fahey  v.  State, 
27  Tex.  App.  146.  The  Illinois  su- 
preme court  says:  "Courts  always 
give  a  liberal  and  not  a  hypercriti- 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


223 


An  act  of  Arkansas  was  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for 
the  erection  of  a  new  state  capitol."  The  act  located  the 
capitol  on  the  grounds  then  occupied  by  the  state  peniten- 
tiary and  authorized  the  penitentiary  commissioners  to  pro- 
cure a  new  site  and  erect  a  new  penitentiary  thereon.  It 
was  held  that  the  act  embraced  but  one  subject,  which  was 
the  building  of  a  new  capitol  on  the  grounds  then  occupied 
by  the  penitentiary,  and  that  the  provisions  referred  to  were 
incidental  to  the  main  purpose.43 

§  130  (97).  The  subject  or  object  stated  generally  in 
the  title  includes  the  abolition  of  things  inconsistent. — 
It  is  germane  to  the  subject  of  an  act  to  repeal  previous 
acts  relating  to  it,  or  inconsistent  with  it."  Such  repeal  is 
ancillary  to  the  purpose  of  the  new  legislation.  But  the 
repeal  of  an  act  not  inconsistent  with  the  new  enactment 
and  not  related  to  its  subject-matter  is  not  within  the  title 
and  such  repeal  is  void.45     "  The  constitutional  requirement 


cal  determination  to  this  restric- 
tion. All  matters  are  properly  in- 
cluded in  the  act  which  are  ger- 
mane to  the  title.  The  constitution 
is  obeyed,  if  all  the  provisions  re- 
late to  the  one  subject  indicated  in 
the  title,  and  are  parts  of  it,  or 
incident  to  it,  or  reasonably  con- 
nected with  it,  or  in  some  reason- 
able sense  auxiliary  to  the  object 
in  view.  It  is  not  required  that 
the  subject  of  the  bill  shall  be 
specifically  and  exactly  expressed 
in  the  title,  or  that  the  title  should 
be  an  index  of  the  details  of  the 
act.  When  there  is  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  subject  is  clearly  ex- 
pressedin  the  title,  the  doubtshould 
be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  validity 
of  the  act."  Ritchie  v.  People,  155 
111.  98,  120,  40  N.  E.  454,  462,  46  Am. 
St.  Rep.  315,  29  L.  R.  A.  79. 

43  State  v.  Sloan,  66  Ark.  575,  53 
S.  W.  47,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  106. 


44  Yellow  River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Ar- 
nold, 46  Wis.  215;  State  v.  County 
Com'rs,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  Cor.  Cas. 
203;  Gabbert  v.  Jefferson ville  R.  R. 
Co.,  11  Ind.  365,  71  Am.  Dec.  358; 
Burke  v.  Monroe  County,  77  111.  610; 
Martin  v.  Hewitt,  44  Ala.  418;  Tol- 
ford  v.  Church,  66  Mich.  431,  33  N. 
W.  913;  State  v.  Aulman,  76  Iowa, 
624,  41  N.  W.  379;  Muldoon  v. 
Levi,  25  Neb.  457,  41  N.  W.  280; 
Ridge  Avenue  Ry.  Co.  v.  Philadel- 
phia, 124  Pa.  St.  219,  16  Atl.  741; 
Trackman  v.  People,  22  Colo.  83,  43 
Pac.  662;  People  v.  Backus,  11  App. 
Div.  147,  42  N.  Y.  S.  899;  Common- 
wealth v.  Moir,  199  Pa.  St.  534,  49 
Atl.  351,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  801. 

45  Los  Angeles  v.  Hance,  122  Cal. 
77,  54  Pac.  387;  State  v.  Pierce,  51 
Kan.  241,  32  Pac.  924;  Bryan  v. 
Board  of  Education,  90  Ky.  322,  13 
S.  W.  276;  Howlett  v.  Cheetham, 
17  Wash.  626,  50  Pac.  522;  Kennedy 


22 l  'i i "I'-  01   acts. 

every  act  shall  embrace  but  one  subject,  which  musi 
n  the  title,  is  not  violated  by  an  omission  to 
mention  in  the  title  of  an  act  relating  to  a  single  subject, 
the  repeal  of  prior  enactments  inconsistent  with  the  new 
enartmont.il'  the  repealing  clause  is  also  confined  to  repeal- 
ing statutes  relating  to  that  one  subject;  but  when  the  re- 
peal mil;-  clause  departs  from  the  subject  embraced  in  the 
title  of  the  act,  and  purports  to  repeal  a  statute  relating  to 
a  subject  not  indicated  by  such  title,  it  comes  within  the 
prohibition  of  the  constitution  and  must  be  treated  as  void 
and  of  no  effect  as  to  the  subject  not  mentioned  in  the 

title. 

When  one  legislative  scheme  or  system  is  intended  to 
supersede  another,  the  subject  of  the  act  which  makes  the 
change  naturally  includes  the  removal  of  the  existing  legis- 
lative institution  intended  to  be  abolished  or  reorganized, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  and  the  establishment  of  the  new  in  its 
place.47  (  me  act  may  divide  the  state  into  judicial  circuits 
for  judicial  purposes,  provide  for  election  of  judges,  fix  the 
time  for  holding  courts;  also  abolish  an  existing  court,  and 
transfer  its  unfinished  business  tc  the  new  court.48  So  one 
act  properly  includes  all  provisions  for  effecting  the  change 
of  a  steam  railroad  running  in  a  tunnel  in  the  street  of  a 
city  to  a  surface  railway,  including  the  subject  of  compen- 
sation to  the  owner  of  the  railroad  and  raising  the  means 
to  pay  it.49  It  may  happen,  when  partial  substitutions  occur, 
that  a  residuum  of  the  previous  state  of  things  will  re- 
main, in  a  disrupted  condition,  requiring  some  fresh  legisla- 
tion not  germane  to  the  disrupting  net.  In  such  case  the 
whole  situation  will  not  be  rearranged  by  one  act.     The 

Toyne,  188  111.  255,  58  N.  E.  540;  Phillips  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  1  Hilt. 

483;     Supervisors     v.    Heemin,     2 

Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.  v.  Met-  Minn.  (2*1),  333. 

Bchan,  90  Fed.  80,  83,  32  C.  C.  A.  530.  ^  State   v.  Tucker,  46  Ind.  355; 

«  Luebrman     .   Taxing  Dist,  2  State  v.  Steele,  39  Ore.  419,  65  Pac. 

-"»;  Smith  v.  Commonwealth,  515. 

tate  v.  McConnell,  3  49  People   v.  Lawrence,  41   N.  Y. 

.     Mullen  v.  State,  34   Ind.  137. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


225 


unity  of  the  original  condition  being  destroyed,  the  validity 
of  the  new  legislation  will  depend  on  its  own  subject  being 
single.50 

§  131.  Where  the  title  expresses  a  general  subject, 
and  also  details,  particulars  or  sub-titles. —  It  is  common 
for  the  title  of  an  act  to  express  a  general  subject,  and  to 
accompany  it  with  the  specification  of  details  or  particulars. 
Titles  are  often  thus  rendered  very  lengthy  and  complicated 
and  sometimes  appear  to  express  two  or  more  subjects 
But  if  the  particulars  are  or  may  be  incidental  or  germane 
to  the  general  title  or  main  purpose,  the  title  is  single,  and 
an  act  embracing  the  same  general  subject  and  particulars 
is  valid.51  The  question  cannot  be  determined  by  regard- 
ing the  title  alone,  but  the  body  of  the  act  must  be  looked 
to,  and  if  all  the  provisions  of  the  act  are  fairly  referable 
to  one  general  subject  and  that  subject  is  expressed  in  the 
title,  the  act  is  valid.52     In  such  cases  the  legislature  is  not 


so  Cutlip  v.  Sheriff,  3  W.  Va.  588. 

"Mitchell  v.  State,  134  Ala.  392, 
32  So.  G87;  Farmers'  Independent 
Ditch  Co.  v.  Agricultural  Ditch  Co., 
22  Colo.  513,  45  Pac.  444,  55  Am.  St. 
Rep.  149;  Frost  v.  Pfeiffer,  26  Colo. 
338,  58  Pac.  147;  People  v.  Nelson, 
133  111.  565,  27  N.  E.  217;  People  v. 
Brooks,  101  Mich.  98,  59  N.  W.  444; 
Soukup  v.  Van  Dyke,  109  Mich.  679, 
67  N.  W.  911 ;  In  re  Ryan,  20  Mont. 
64,  50  Pac.  129;  Van  Horn  v.  State, 
46  Neb.  62,  64  N.  W.  365;  Cooper- 
rider  v.  State,  46  Neb.  84,  64  N.  W. 
372;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Crider,  91 
Tenn.  489,  19  S.  W.  618;  In  re 
Fourth  Judicial  Dist.,  4  Wyo.  133, 
32  Pac.  850:  Baker  v.  Kaiser,  126 
Fed.  317  (C.  C.  A.).  In  Hronek  v. 
People,  134  111.  139, 114,  24  N.  E.  861, 
8  L.  R.  A.  837.  it  is  said:  "It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  tit  e  shall  ex- 
press all  of  the  minor  divisions  of 
the  general  subject  to  which  the 
15 


act  relates,  and  it  is  sufficient  if  it 
express  the  general  subject  of  the 
act,  and  all  the  minor  subdivisions 
germane  to  the  general  subject 
will  be  held  to  be  included  in  it. 
But  if  the  title  expresses  such  mi- 
nor subdivisions  which,  without 
such  expression,  would  be  held  to 
be  included  within  the  general 
subject,  such  expression  will  not 
render  the  title  obnoxious  to  the 
constitutional  provision." 

52  Van  Horn  v.  State,  46  Neb.  62, 
64  N.  W.  365;  Cooperrider  v.  State, 
46  Neb.  84,  64  N.  W.  372.  In  the 
first  case  it  is  said:  "The  constitu- 
tional inhibition  is  against  the 
bill's  containing  more  than  one 
subject.  The  title  must  clearly 
express  the  subject;  but,  provided 
the  bill  itself  contains  but  one  sub- 
ject, and  this  subject  is  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  it  matters  not 
although  the  title,  read  independ- 


Tl  n  i:   OF   A.OT8. 

limited  to  the  particulars  or  details  specified,  but  may  enact 
any  provision  germane  to  the  general  title,  unless  the  title 
worded  as  to  show  a  clear  intent  to  eon  line  the  act  to 
the  particulars  mentioned.5"  The  supreme  court  of  Penn- 
sylvania says:  "When  a  general  title,  sufficient  to  cover 
all  the  provisions  of  an  act,  is  followed  by  specifications  of 
the  particular  branches  of  the  subject  with  which  it  pro- 
-  to  deal,  the  scope  of  the  act  is  not  limited  nor  the 
validity  of  the  title  impaired  except  as  to  such  portions  of 
the  general  subject  as  legislators  and  others  would  naturally 
and  reasonably  be  led  by  the  qualifying  words  to  suppose 
would  not  be  affected  by  the  act.  This  is  the  rule  estab- 
lished by  all  our  cases.  It  is  an  application  of  the  maxim 
"a ins  exclusio  dltij'ius;.  The  express  enumeration 
of  the  specific  subjects  must  be  affirmatively  misleading  as 
to  the  intent  to  include  others,  or  the  title  will  not  be  made 
invalid  by  it."  M 

§  132.  Effect  of  title  referring  to  act  or  other  sources 
of*  inform  at  ion. —  The  command  of  the  constitution  is  that 
the  subject  shall  be  expressed  in  the  title.  The  supreme 
court  of  Texas  says:  "The  constitution  declares  that  the 
'  subject  shall  be  expressed  in  the  title,'  and  it  cannot  be  said 
that  this  has  been  done  where  the  title  does  no  more  than  to 
furnish  a  reference  to  some  other  writing,  document  or  law 
from  which  by  search  the  true  purpose  of  the  title  may  be 
ascertained.  .  .  .  No  one  would  contend  that  a  title  as 
follows,  '  An  act  in  reference  to  the  subject  embraced  in  the 
bill  to  which  this  is  the  title,'  would  be  sufficient,  although 
such  a  title  attached  to  a  bill  would  give  most  easy  reference 
to  sources  of  information  from  which  the  subject  of  the  con- 
templated law  might  be  ascertained.     This  is  so  because  the 

- -ruly  of  the  bill,  may  seem  double,  pressed  therein.     If  so,  the  consti- 

We  therefore  look  to  the  bill  itself  tutional  provision   we   have    been 

to   ascertaiFi   whether   it   contains  discussing  is  not  violated."     p.  72. 

nan  one  subject,  and  having  53  State  v.  Atherton,  19  Nev.  332, 

rtained   that   it  contains    but  10  Pac.  901. 

one.  then    we  look  to  Lite  title  to  54  In   re  Sugar  Notch  Borough, 

f  that   subject  is   clearly  ex-  192  Pa.  St.  349,  43  Atl.  985. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  227 

constitution  requires  the  subject  of  an  act  to  be  given  in  the 
title  to  it,  and  a  mere  reference  to  something  else  for  the  in- 
formation thus  required  to  be  given  is  not  sufficient."55  An 
act  to  authorize  a  city  "  to  pledge  not  exceeding  one-fourth 
of  its  general  revenue  for  the  payment  and  security  of  judg- 
ments and  claims  herein  specified"  was  held  valid  as  to  its 
title.56 

§  133.  Errors  in  title,  and  whether  title  can  be  corrected 
by  act  or  otherwise. —  Errors  are  more  likely  to  occur  in 
amendatory  acts  than  in  original  acts,  and  this  branch  of  the 
subject  is  treated  in  a  subsequent  section.57  Meaningless 
words  and  phrases  may  be  rejected  from  a  title,58  and  surplus- 
age may  generally  be  disregarded.59  Errors  which  are  mani- 
fest from  an  inspection  of  the  title  itself,  or  from  the  title 
taken  in  connection  with  facts  of  which  the  court  will  take 
judicial  notice,  may  be  corrected  by  the  court,  or  the  title  read 
as  if  such  corrections  had  been  made.  But  the  title  cannot  be 
changed  or  corrected  by  reference  to  the  act  alone,  as  that 
would  destroy  the  efficacy  of  the  constitutional  provision.00 

55  Gunter  v.  Texas  Land  &  Mortg.  514,  92  N.  W.  852.  The  title  of  the 
Co.,  82  Tex.  496,  17  S.  W.  840.  The  act  in  question  in  these  cases  was 
true  and  actual  subject  or  object  to  provide  for  the  allowance  of  ad- 
must  be  expressed  in  the  title  and  ditional  attorneys'  fees  against  the 
not  by  way  of  reference  to  some-  defendant  in  actions  to  enjoin 
thing  else  to  show  it.  People  v.  drainage  proceedings  or  the  levy 
Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  553;  Tingue  v.  Port  and  collection  of  taxes  and  assess- 
Chester,  101  N.  Y.  294,  C03,  4  N.  E.  ments.  The  act  provided  for  such 
625;  People  v.  Fleming,  7  Colo.  231,  costs  against  the  plaintiff.  The 
3  Pac.  70;  Pennington  v.  Woolfolk,  court  held  that  it  could  not  read 
79  Ky.  13.  the  word  "defendant"  in  the  title 

86  Austin  v.  McCall,  95  Tex.  565,  as  "plaintiff"  and  held  the  act 
68  S.  W.  791.  void.    The  court,  in  the  first  case. 

87  See  post,  §  138.  says:  "As  has  been  seen,  errors  in 

58  Allen  v.  Hopkins,  62  Kan.  175,  titles  are  not  necessarily  always 
61  Pac.  750.  fatal.   When  they  are  obvious  from 

59  See  ante,  £  131 ;  Thomas  v.  State,  an  inspection  of  the  title,  or  when 
124  Ala.  48,  27  So.  315.  an  inadvertence  is  apparent  from 

6uErickson  v.  Cass  County,  11  facts  which  courts  and  the  public 
N.  D.  494,  92  N.  W.  841;  Turnquist  are  bound  to  know,  and  it  is  ap- 
v.  Cass  County  Dr.  Com'rs,  11  N.  D.     parent  that  the  error  could  not  have 


i  i  r i  i :    OF    AC  is. 


An  act  entitled  "  An  act  repeating  Bectiona  470 and  472, art. 
[X,  of  th<  j  olitical  code,  relating  to  the  appointment  of  tho 
state  land  agent  and  his  annual  salary,"  in  fact  amended 
both  said  sections  so  as  to  read  as  follows,  etc.  The  act  was 
held  valid.'11  "  But  we  cannot  think,"  says  the  court,  "the 
misuse  o\  the  w  ord  '  repeal  '  in  the  title  must  result  in  over- 
throwing  the  whole  law,  inasmuch  as  the  other  words  of  the 
title  to  tho  bill  very  clearly  point  out  the  sections,  chapter, 
.ode  and  subject  to  be  affected  by  the  provisions  of  a 
lull." 

154.  The  subject  may  he  expressed  by  the  description 
Of  its  parts  oi-  subdivisions. —  The  subject  of  an  act   may 
ssed  generally  in  the  title,1'-  or  spelled  out  from  de- 
tails, and  occasionally  from  details  which  are  independent 
and  unconnected  except  through  some  general  subject  as 
rman  are  related   through  a  common  ancestor. ''* 


misled  either  the  legislature  or  the 
public,  and  the  true  intent  is  cer- 
tain, the  error  will  be  disregarded. 
But  we  cannot  concede  that  words 
or  language  appearing  in  titles  can 
be    established    as    inadvertently 
used,  and  corrected  as  such,  solely 
by  reference  to  the  contents  oi'  the 
ait.    Such  a  doctrine  would  utterly 
rds  a  Horded  by 
the  requirement  that  the  subject 
,-ation  shall  be  expressed  in 
the  title,  and  thus  make  the  act, 
instead  of  the  title,  controlling  as 
to  the  subject  of  legislation.   There 
are  no  facts  of  which  we  can  take 
judicial  notice,  neither  are  there 
any  reasons  suggested  by  an  inspec- 
!  this  title  which  disclose  that 
the  word  'defendants'  was  inserted 
in  the  title  inadvertently.   The  title 
I  ea  Is  clearly  expresses  a  sub- 
■f  legislation.    The  subject  of 
ation  embodied  in  the  act  is 
an  entirely  different  one,  and  is  not 


expressed  in  the  title.  The  error 
in  the  use  of  the  word  'defend- 
ants,' if  error  it  was,  appeared  in 
the  bill  as  originally  introduced, 
and  was  perpetuated  through  its 
passage  and  final  approval.  Under 
these  circumstances  we  have  no 
reason  for  saying,  and  cannot  say, 
that  no  one  within  or  without  the 
legislature  was  misled  by  the  error 
in  the  title." 

61  State  v.  Page,  20  Mont.  238,  50 
Pac.  THt. 

v-Ante,  g  121. 

63  Attorney-General  v.  Joy,  55 
Mich.  04;  State  v.  Young,  47  Ind. 
150;  Bitters  v.  Board,  etc.,  81  Ind. 
125;  State  v.  Board,  etc.,  26  Ind.  522; 
State  v.  .Miller.  45  Mo.  405;  State  v. 
Bowers,  14  Ind.  195;  Lauer  v.  State, 
22  Ind.  4G1;  In  re  Dept.  Pub.  Parks, 
86  N.  Y.  437;  People  v.  Ins.  Co.,  19 
Mich.  392;  Garvin  v.  State,  13  Lea, 
162;  Neifing  v.  Town  of  Pontiac,  56 
111.  172;  People  v.  Banks,  67  N.  Y. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


229 


According  to  the  authorities  the  general  subject  need  not 
appear  in  the  title,  if  it  is  clearly  disclosed  or  readil}7  in- 
ferred from  the  details  expressed.64  Two  examples  of  such 
titles  follow:  "An  act  to  change  and  regulate  the  grand 
jury  system  by  reducing  the  number  of  grand  jurors,  pro- 
viding that  a  grand  jury  shall  be  summoned  only  when 
ordered  by  the  court,  and  providing  for  presentation  by 
information  and  the  procedure  thereunder."  The  act  fol- 
lowed the  title  and  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject, 
"  the  accusation  of  persons  accused  of  crime,"  and  that  that 
subject  was  sufficiently  expressed  in  the  title.65  "An  act 
regulating  the  weighing  of  coal,  providing  for  the  safety  of 
employees,  protecting  persons  and  property  injured,  provid- 
ing for  the  proper  ventilation  of  mines,  prohibiting  boys 
and  females  from  working  in  mines,  conflicting  acts  re- 
pealed, and  providing  penalties  for  violation."  The  real 
subject  of  this  act  was  held  to  be  coal  mines  and  to  be 
expressed  by  the  title.66 


568;  Ramognano  v.  Crook,  85  Ala. 
226,  3  So.  845;  Burnside  v.  Lincoln 
Co.  Court,  86  Ky.  423,  6  S.  W.  276; 
Indianapolis  v.  Huegele,  115  Ind. 
581,  18  N.  E.  172. 

w  Central  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Feh- 
ring,  146  Ind.  189,  45  N.  E.  64;  Isen- 
hour  v.  State,  157  Ind.  517,  62  N.  E. 
40,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  228;  State  v. 
Sanders,  42  Kan.  228,  21  Pac.  1073; 
State  v.  LaVaque,  47  Minn.  106,  49 
N.  W.  525;  Ex  parte  Livingston,  20 
Nev.  282,  21  Pac.  322;  Rodenbaugh 
v.  Phila.  Traction  Co.,  190  Pa.  St. 
558,  42  Atl.  953;  Bowden  v.  Phila. 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  196  Pa.  St.  562,  46  Atl. 
843. 

65  In  re  Boulter,  5  Wyo.  329,  40 
Pac.  520. 

^Maule  Coal  Co.  v.  Parthenhei- 
nier,  155  Ind.  100,  55  N.  E.  751.  The 
court  says:  "It  may  be  asserted 
that  the  constitutional  restriction 


is  obeyed  by  the  legislature  in  the 
enactment  of  a  law,  if  its  provis- 
ions relate  to  the  one  subject  as 
indicated  by  the  title,  and  in  some 
reasonable  sense  may  be  considered 
as  auxiliary  to  such  subject.  The 
title  of  the  law  in  controversy  is 
not  a  model,  and,  perhaps,  is  open 
to  criticism.  It  at  least  may  be 
said,  however,  that  it  substantially 
responds  to  the  mandate  of  the  con- 
stitution. The  form  and  terms 
employed  in  framing  the  title  pos- 
sibly operate  to  give  expression,  by 
parts,  to  the  general  subject  to 
which  the  proposed  legislation  re- 
lates. When  these  parts,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  are  taken  and 
considered  collectively,  they  con- 
stitute such  a  title  as  serves  fairly 
to  point  out  or  disclose  the  general 
subject-matter,  coal  mines,  over 
which  the  legislature  proposes  to 


'1  1  111'    OF     ACTS. 


135.  Words  <>r  act  restrained  or  qualified  by  title. — 

The  words  of  an  act  will  be  restrained  <)!•  qualified  by  the 
title.  " By  force  of  our  constitutional  provision,  requiring 
the  object  of  every  law  to  be  expressed  in  its  title,  the  title 
limits  the  sphere  within  which  the  enacting  clause  can  oper- 
ate."*1 "An  act  to  make  it  unlawful  for  a  person  to  fraud- 
ulently  dispose  of  the  property  of  another,"  made  it  penal 
for  any  prison  to  sell,  dispose  of,  or  convert  to  bis  own  use, 
the  property  of  another  without  bis  consent.  It  was  held 
that  the  general  words  of  the  act  were  qualified  or  limited 
by  the  title  to  a  fraudulent  disposition  of  another's  prop- 
erty.68 

§  136.  Acts  to  prohibit,  regulate,  protect,  etc.,  imply 
penalties  and  civil  liabilities. —  An  act  to  regulate  any 
Bed  business,  or  the  use  of  property,  or  regulating  hu- 
man conduct  in  any  way,  or  to  prohibit  acts  or  things,  or  to 
protect  persons  or  property  or  public  or  private  rights,  may 
include  penal  provisions,69  or  provisions  imposing  a  civil  lia- 


legislate,  and  this  renders  it  suffi- 
■i-ut." 

67  Allen  v.  Bernards  Tp.,  57  N.  J. 

I  .  303,  31  Atl.  219.    Tosame  effect: 

State  v.  Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  99 

Ala.  221, 13  So.  362;  Comer  v.  State, 

L03  Ga  69,  29  S.  E.  501;  Martin  v. 

South  Salem  Land  Co.,  94  Va.  28, 

.  591. 

"iiiinon wealth   v.  Barney,  24 

Ky.  L  Reu.  2352,  74  S.  W.  181.    See 

further  on  the  subject,  post,  ch.  IX. 

re    Pratt,    19   Colo.  188,  34 

Albersoa  v.  Mayor,  82  Ga. 

.  McCook  v.  State,  91 

;  s.  K.  L019;  Maynard  v. 

all,  '.'l  Ga  840,  18  SL  E,  403; 

P  unib  v.  Christie,  103  G 

759;  Sykea  v.  People,  127  111. 

I  :-.   K.   705;   People  v.  Blue 

tain  Joe.  129  III.  370,  21  X.  K. 

•    ■..  Pe  pie,  149  III.  486,37 

.  60,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  304,  23  L. 


R,  A.  821;  State  v.  Gerhardt,  145 
Ind.  439,  44  N.  E.  469;  State  v. 
Stunkle,  41  Kan.  456,  21  Pac.  675; 
State  v.  Bush,  45  Kan.  13S,  25  Pac. 
614,  632;  Helvenstine  v.  Yantis,  88 
Ky.  695,  11  S.  W.  811;  Hartford 
Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Raymond,  70  Mich. 
485,  38  X.  W.  474;  People  v.  Miller, 
88  .Mich.  383, 50  N.  W.  296;  Burrows 
v.  Delta  Trans.  Co.,  106  Mich.  582, 
64  N.  W.  501,  29  L.  R.  A.  408;  State 
v.  Power,  63  Xeb.  496,  88  X.  W. 
769;  State  v.  Corson,  67  X.  J.  L. 
178,  50  Atl.  780;  Weil  v.  State,  46 
Ohio  St.  450,  21  X.  E.  643;  State  v. 
Koshland,  25  Ore.  178,  35  Pac.  32; 
Commonwealth  v.  Depuy,  148  Pa. 
St.  201,23  Atl. 890;  Commonwealth 
v.  Jones,  4  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  362;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Beatty,  15  Pa.  Supr. 
.  State  v.  Morgan,  2  S.  D.  32,  48 
X.  W.  314;  Hathaway  v.  McDon- 
ald, 27  Wash.   659,  67    Pac.  710,  91 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


231 


bility  or  giving  a  civil  remedy,70  without  such  penalties, 
liabilities  or  remedies  being  referred  to  in  the  title.  The 
imposition  of  both  civil  and  criminal  liabilities  in  the 
same  act  does  not  create  a  duality  of  subjects.71 

§  137  (101).  The  title  and  subject  of  amendatory  and 
supplementary  acts  —  General  principles. —  The  constitu- 
tional requirement  under  discussion  as  applied  to  acts  of  this 
character  when  they  contain  matter  which  might  appro- 
priately have  been  incorporated  in  the  original  act  under  its 
title  is  satisfied  generally  if  the  amendatory  or  supplemental 
act  identifies  the  original  act  by  its  title,  and  declares  the 
purpose  to  amend  or  supplement  it.72     Under  such  a  title, 


Am.  St.  Eep.  889;  Alberson  v. 
Mayor,  82  Ga.  30,  8  S.  E.  869.  Com- 
pare State  v.  McDonald,  25  Wash. 
122,  64  Pac.  912. 

70  Barnhill  v.  Teague,  96  Ala.  207, 
11  So.  444;  Beebe  v.  Tolerton,  117 
Iowa,  593,  91  N.  W.  905;  De  Both  v. 
Rich  Hill  Coal  &  Min.  Co.,  141  Mo. 
497,  42  S.  W.  1081;  Peterson  v. 
State,  104  Tenn.  127,  56  S.  W.  834. 

71  Commonwealth  v.  Moore,  2  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  162. 

72  Street  v.  Hooten,  131  Ala.  492, 
32  So.  580;  Leake  v.  Colgan,  125 
Cal.  413,  58  Pac.  69;  Beach  v.  Von 
Detten,  139  Cal.  462,  73  Pac.  187; 
Davidson  v.  Von  Detten,  139  Cal. 
467,  73  Pac.  189;  Gibson  v.  State,  16 
Fla.  291;  Saunders  v.  Provisional 
Municipality,  24  Fla.  226;  Jones  v. 
Columbus,  25  Ga.  610;  Alberson  v. 
Mayor,  82  Ga.  30,  8  S.  E.  869;  New- 
man v.  State,  101  Ga.  534,  28  S.  E. 
1005;  Jones  v.  Lake  View,  151  111. 
663,  38  N.  E.  688;  Morrison  v.  Peo- 
ple, 196  111.  454,  63  N.  E.  989;  Bran- 
don v.  State,  16  Ind.  197;  Bell  v. 
Marsh,  137  Ind.  226,  36  N.  E.  358; 
Lewis  v.  State,  148  Ind.  346, 47  N.  E. 
675;  Udell  v.  Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co., 


152  Ind.  507,  52  N.  E.  799;  Morford 
v.  Unger,  8  Iowa,  82;  Williams  v. 
Keokuk,  44  Iowa,  88;  Iowa  Savings 
&  L.  Ass'n  v.  Selby,  111  Iowa,  402, 
82  N.  W.  968;  Second  German  Am. 
B.  Ass'n  v.  Newman,  50  Md.  62; 
Swartwout  v.  Railroad  Co.,  24  Mich. 
389;  Hoffman  v.  Parsons,  27  Minn. 
236;  Holden  v.  Supervisors,  77  Mich. 
202,  43  N.  W.  969;  Detroit  v.  Wayne 
Circuit  Judge,  112  Mich.  317,  70 
N.  W.  894;  Fort  St,  Union  Depot 
Co.  v.  Com'r  of  R.  R,  118  Mich.  340, 
76  N.  W.  631;  Attorney-General  v. 
Bolger,  128  Mich.  355,  87  N.  W.  366; 
State  v.  Madson,  43  Minn.  438,  45 
N.  W.  8">6;  Willis  v.  Mabon,  48 
Minn.  140,  50  N.  W.  1110,  31  Am.  St. 
Rep.  626;  St.  Louis  v.  Tiefel,  42 
Mo.  578;  Perry  v.  Gross,  25  Neb. 
826,  4  N.  W.  799;  In  re  White,  33 
Neb.  812,  51  N.  W.  287;  Kleckner 
v.  Turk,  45  Neb.  176,  63  N.  W.  469; 
State  v.  Bemis,  45  Neb.  724,  64 
N.  W.  348;  State  v.  Cornell,  54  Neb. 
72,  74  N.  W.  432;  State  v.  Newark, 
34  N.  J.  L.  236;  Rah  way  Savings 
Inst.  v.  Rahway,  53  N.  J.  L.  48,  20 
Atl.  756;  People  v.  Willsea,  60  N.  Y. 
507;  Matter  of  New  York  &  L.  I. 


TITLE    OF    a<  IB. 


alterations  by  excision,  addition   or  substitution  may  bo 

made,  and  any  provisions  may  be  enacted  winch  might  have 


Bridge  Ca,  148  N.  Y.  540,  48  N.  E. 

Bohmer  v.  Haffen,  161  N.  Y. 

55  N.  1'..  1047;  Wilcox  v.  Baker, 

82  A  pp.  Div.  899,  -17  N.  Y.  S.  900; 

irte  Bowe,  20  Ore.  181,  87 
Pao.  586;  State  Line,  etc.  R.  K.  Co.'s 
Appeal,  77  Pa  St.  429;  Craig  v. 
First  Presb.  Church,  88  Pa.  St.  42; 
Millvale  v.  Evergreen  Ky.  Co.,  181 

.  1.  1-  Atl.  998,  7  L.  R,  A.  369; 

Philadelphia  v.  Ridge  Ave.  Ky.  Co., 

142  Pa  St.  484,  81  Atl.  982,  24  Am. 

St  Rep.  512;  Mt.  Joy  v.  Turnpike 

L82   Pa   St.  581,  88  Atl.  411; 

ere'  Petition,  192  Pa  St  97,  13 

Atl.  475;  Commonwealth  v.  Gilli- 

gan,  195  Pa  St  504,  46  Atl.  124; 

monwealth  v.  Shims,  195  Pa. 

5,  46  Ail.  127;  Commonwealth 
v.  Howell.  195  Pa  St.  519,  40  Atl. 
1102:  Commonwealth  v.  Brown,  91 
Va.  762,  21  S.  E.  357;  Robey  v.  Shep- 
ard,  42  W.  Ya.  286,  2G  S.  E.  278: 
Mills  v.  Charleton,  29  Wis.  400,  9 
Am.  Rep.  578;  Yellow  River  Imp. 
Co.  v.  Arnold,  40  Wis.  214,  221;  Na- 
tional Bank  v.  Commissioners,  14 
Fed.  .  Hyman  v.  State,  87 

Tern.  W.  372;  Hyde  Park 

v.  Chicago,  124  111.  156,  16  N.  E.  222. 
In  State  v.  Smith,  35  Minn.  257, 
it  appears  that  outside  of  the  gen- 
eral law  for  the  assessment  and 
collection  of  taxes  an  independent 
or  cumulative  act  in  pari  matt  ria 
was  in  force  requiring  notice  of  the 
expiration  of  redemption  after  a 

tie.  A  subsequent  statute,  en- 
title I  generally  asan  act  to  amend 

eneral  law,  contained  a  pro- 
visio:  •.  repealing  tl'i-  sep- 

arate statute,  which  was  probably 


equivalent  to  providing  that  re- 
demption  Bhould  expire  absolutely 
by  lapse  of  the  redemption  period 

without    notice    to  the   party   who 

had  the  right  of  redemption.  This 
was  matter  germane  to  the  orig- 
inal bill  which  was  amended,  and 
under  the  rule  stated  in  the  text 
the  title  was  sufficient.  The  court, 
however,  held  otherwise,  and  Dick- 
inson, J.,  delivering  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  said:  "An  amendatory 
law  is  for  the  amendment  not  of 
what  might  have  been  enacted 
under  the  title  of  the  original  stat- 
ute, but  of  what  was  enacted:  not 
of  what  the  original  law  might 
have  been,  but  of  what  it  was. 
Hence  the  sufficiency  of  the  title 
of  an  act  merely  declared  to  be 
amendatory  of  a  prior  law,  to  jus- 
tify the  legislation  which  may  be 
enacted  under  it,  depends  not  alone 
upon  the  fact  that  the  title  of  the 
original  statute  was  so  compre- 
hensive that  the  legislation  might 
have  been  properly  enacted  in  such 
prior  law,  but  it  depends  also  upon 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the  prior 
enactment  to  amend  which  is  the 
tied  purpose  or  subject  of  the 
latter  act.  This  seems  self-evident; 
but  to  test  the  correctness  of  the 
rule  invoked,  let  us  apply  it  tosup- 
posable  cases.  We  will  assume 
that  under  the  title  of  the  law  of 
1878,  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  as- 
sessment and  collection  of  taxes," 
the  only  legislation  adopted  had 
been  a  change  of  the  prior  law  in 
respect  to  the  time  of  meeting  of 
the  state  board  of  equalization  or 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


233 


been  incorporated  in  the  original  act.73  "A  title  which  ex- 
presses a  purpose  to  amend  an  earlier  enactment,  referring 
to  the  earlier  enactment  by  its  title, in  which  the  subject  of 
the  proposed  legislation  is  clearly  expressed,  is  no  more  or 
less  than  the  expression  of  a  purpose  to  deal  with  the  sub- 
ject so  expressed  in  the  title  of  the  earlier  enactment."74 


of  the  manner  of  publishing  the 
delinquent  list.  Now,  suppose  a 
later  act,  declared  in  its  title  to  be 
amendatory  of  that  act,  to  consist 
of  two  sections;  the  first  amend- 
ing the  prior  act  by  prescribing  a 
different  time  for  the  meeting  of 
the  state  board  or  a  different  man- 
ner of  publishing  the  delinquent 
list.  The  second  section,  we  will 
suppose,  simply  declares  the  repeal 
of  section  2  of  a  law  of  1873  (Sp. 
Laws,  1873,  ch.  Ill),  authorizing 
railroad  corporations  to  adopt  the 
scheme  of  substituted  taxation  in 
that  act  provided;  or  let  the  sup- 
posed second  section  declare  the 
repeal  of  the  law  of  1877  (chapter 
105),  which  required  an  annual  re- 
turn by  railroad  corporations  of 
land  sold  from  their  untaxable 
land  grant,  so  that  the  same  might 
be  properly  subjected  to  taxation; 
or  again,  let  the  supposed  second 
section  be  like  that  now  in  ques- 
tion,—  simply  the  repeal  of  the  act 
of  1877,  respecting  the  giving  of 
notice  of  the  expiration  of  the 
period  for  redemption;  or  let  us 
suppose  that  the  so-called  amenda- 
tory act  had  consisted  only  of  such 
repeal  of  the  law  of  1877.  In  such 
cases  the  mind  is  at  once  impressed 
with  the  incongruity  between  the 
subject  of  the  act  as  expressed  in 
its  title  and  the  enactment  under 
it.    Yet  the  principle  relied  upon 


by  the  respondent  would  sustain 
such  legislation,  because  it  might 
have  been  adopted  under  the  title 
of  the  original  law.  The  fault  in 
the  asserted  rule  is  that  it  does  not 
regard  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  original  enact'  lent  which  it  is 
the  declared  purpose  of  the  later 
act  to  amend,  but  only  the  title  of 
it;  it  rests  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  enactment  was  as  com- 
prehensive as  under  its  title  it 
might  have  been.  We  think  it 
cannot  be  relied  upon  to  aid  in  the 
determination  of  such  cases,  and, 
if  recognized  as  a  rule  without 
qualification,  that  it  would  open  a 
way  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
very  evils  which  the  constitutional 
provision  was  intended  to  pre- 
vent." Re-affirmed  in  State  ex  rel. 
Nash  v.  Madson,  43  Minn.  438,  45 
N.  W.  856. 

73  Id. ;  Robinson  v.  Lane,  19  Ga. 
337. 

74  Street  v.  Hooten,  131  Ala.  492, 
501,  32  So.  580.  In  State  v.  Porter, 
53  Minn.  279,  285,  55  N.  W.  134,  it  is 
said:  "The  substance  of  what  has 
been  said,  so  far  as  we  need  to  re- 
peat it  at  this  time,  is  that  an 
amendatory  law  is  for  the  amend- 
ment, not  of  what  might  have  been 
enacted  under  the  title  of  the  orig- 
inal statute,  but  of  what  was  en- 
acted. Hence  the  sufficiency  of 
the  title  of  an  act  merely  declared 


TITLE    OF    A.OT8, 


The  title  of  the  amendatory  ad  need  not  specify  or  indicate 
the  nature  of  the  amendment.70  And  where  it  gives  the 
of  the  net  amended  it  need  not  refer  to  its  chapter  num- 
ber or  date  of  passage.76  It  of  course  follows  that  provisions 
of  the  amendatory  act  not  germane  to  the  subject  expressed 
in  the  title  of  the  original  act  are  unconstitutional  and 
void."  In  Idaho  it  has  been  held  that  an  amendatory  acl 
may  introduce  new  matter,  not  expressed  in  the  title  of  the 
original  act,  nor  germane  thereto,  provided  the  subject  of 
such  new  matter  is  indicated  in  the  title  of  the  amendatory 
act.79 

§  l.'JS.  Effect  of  error  or  uncertainty  in  title  of  amend- 
atory act. — "Where  the  title  of  the  amendatory  act  recites 
the  title  of  the  act  amended,  and  there  is  only  one  act  with 
that  title,  an  error  in  referring  to  the  date  of  the  passage 
or  approval  of  the  act  amended  will  not  vitiate  the  title.7'1 


to  be  amendatory  of  a  prior  law,  to 
justify  the  legislation  which  may- 
be enacted  under  it,  depends,  not 
alone  upon  the  fact  that  the  title 
to  the  original  statute  was  so  com- 
prehensive  that  the  legislation  in 
question  might  have  been  properly 
enacted  in  such  prior   law,  but  it 

ndsalso  upon  the  nature  and 

nt  of  the  prior  enactment,  to 
amend  which  is  the  declared  pur- 

or  subject  of  the  later  act." 

The  decision  of  the  court  does  not 

ite  as   far  as  the  quotation, 

but  is  to  the  effect  that  an  amend- 

I  to  one  act  cannot  introduce 
matter  which  is  covered  by  an- 
other independent  act,  although 
the  matter  so  introduced  is  ger- 
mane to  the  title  of  the  act 
.     See;     ' 

e  v.  Colgan,  125  Cal.  413, 
ij  Fori  8t  i  rnion  Depot 
un'r  of  R  EL,  118  Mich. 

76  N.  W.  681. 


™  Willis  v.  Mabon,  48  Minn.  140, 
50  N.  W.  1110,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  626. 

"State  v.  Davis,  130  Ala.  113,  30 
So.  344,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  23;  Don- 
nersberger  v.  Prendergast,  128  111. 
229,  21  N.  E.  1;  Kennedy  v.  Le 
Moyne,  188  III.  255,  58  N.  E.  903; 
State  v.  Pierce,  51  Kan.  241,  32  Pac. 
924;  Eaton  v.  Walker,  7G  Mich.  579, 
4:5  X.  W.  638,  CLRA.  102;  Trum- 
ble  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  340,  55  N. 
W.  8G9;  State  v.  Bovven,  54  Neb.  21 1. 
74  N.  W.  615;  Mack  v.  State,  00  N. 
J.  L.  28,  36  Atl.  1088:  Parfitt  v.  Fer- 
guson, 3  A  pp.  Div.  176,  33  N.  Y.  S. 
466;  Crowtherv.  Fidelity  Ins., Trust 
&  Safe  Dep.  Co.,  85  Fed.  41,  29  C.  C. 
A.  1;  Walling  v.  Diekeitown,  64 
N.  J.  L.  203,  44  Atl.  864;  Astor  v. 
Arcade  Ry.  Co.,  1 13  N.  Y.  93,  20  N. 
E.  594,  2  L.  R.  A.  789. 

^Andrews  v.  Ada  County,  7  Id- 
aho, 453,63  Pac.  592. 

raAlberson  v.  Mayor.  82  Ga.  30,8 
S.  E.  869;  Citizens'  St.  R.  R  Co.  v. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


235- 


Tn  such  case  the  reference  to  the  date  may  be  treated  as  sur- 
plusage. A  slight  variance  in  reciting  the  title  of  the  act 
amended  will  be  immaterial,  if  the  act  intended  is  clearly 
identified.80  But  where  the  variance  was  calculated  to  mis- 
lead as  to  the  nature  of  the  amendment,  it  was  held  fatal.81 
An  act  entitled  an  act  to  amend  section  1733  of  chapter  XI 
of  title  XI  of  the  criminal  code  of  Oregon  was  held  good, 
although  there  was  no  such  chapter  or  title,  there  being  but' 
one  section  with  the  number  given.82  The  title  and  body 
of  an  amendatory  act  described  the  section  to  be  amended 
by  a  number  given  to  it  in  an  unofficial  compilation  in  com- 
mon use.  The  intent  of  the  legislature  was  held  to  be  plain 
and  effect  was  given  to  the  act,  so  that  while  the  title  and 
act  purported  to  amend  section  202  of  article  8  of  a  specified 
statute,  they  were  given  effect  as  an  amendment  of  section 
1  of  article  8.83  An  act  was  entitled  "An  act  to  amend  sec- 
tion 4  of  act  No.  2S2  of  the  local  acts  of  1877,  entitled,"  etc. 
Act  Xo.  282  was  an  act  to  revise  the  charter  of  Grand  Bap- 
ids  and  was  divided  into  ten  titles,  each  of  which  had  a  sec- 
tion 4.  It  was  held  that  the  title  referred  to  the  first  sec- 
tion 4  and  was  sufficient  for  the  purpose.84  But  "  An  act  to> 
amend  chapter  9  of  the  penal  code  of  the  state  of  Montana  " 
was  held  void  for  uncertainty,  there  being  several  chapters 
havino-  that  number.85  An  act  to  amend  "sections  1770  and 
1782  inclusive  of,"  etc.,  was  held  to  include  the  intermediate 
sections,  the  same  as  though  all  the  numbers  had  been  given 
in  detail.86 

Haugh,  142  Ind.  254,  41  N.  E.  533;  estate  v.  Robinson,  32  Ore.  43, 

American    Surety    Co.    v.    Great  48  Pac.  357. 

White  Spirit  Co.,  58  N.  J.  L.  526, 43  ™  Otis  v.  People,  196  111.  542,  63. 

Atl.  579.  N.  E.  1053.     See  post  §  141. 

so  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.  v.  Met-  84  Stow  v.  Grand  Rapids,  79  Mich, 

schan,  90  Fed.  80,  32  C.  C.  A.  530.  595.  44  N.  W.  1047. 

81  Sanders  v.  Cambria  County,  4  85  State  v.  Mitchell,  17  Mont.  67, 

Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  241.    See  Man  kin  v.  42  Pac.    100.      And  see  Hearn   v. 

Pennsylvania  Co.    (Ind.),  67  N.  E.  Louttit,  42  Ore.  572,  72  Pac.  132. 

229.  8«  state  v.  Long,  21  Mont.  26,  52 

Pac.  645. 


ii  n.r  OF    \ri  v. 


§  189.  r.ii'ccf  of  title  specifying  the  section  or  sections  to 

be  amended.-  Where  the  title  of  the  amendatory  act  specifies 
the  Bection  or  Bectiona  to  be  amended,  the  weight  of  authority 
is  that  the  amendments  must  be  germane  to  the  subject-mat- 
ter of  the  sections  specified,*1  and  that  amendments  of  other 
Bections,not  cpeoified,  will  be  void.88  In  Michigan,  in  such 
.  the  specification  of  the  sections  is  treated  as  surplus- 
and,  under  a  title  to  amend  a  particular  section  or  sec- 
tions of  an  act,  it  is  held  that  the  whole  law  is  open  to 
amendment.89    It  is  held  in  some  states  that  under  a  title 


87  Ex  parte  Cowert,  02  Ala.  94,  9 
Sa  225;  Newman  v.  State,  101  Ga 
534,  28  S.  E,  1005;  State  v.  Am. 
Sugar  Ref.  Co..  106  La  553,  31  So. 
181;    Horkey  v.  Kendall,    •">:'■  Neb. 

7  :  N.  \Y.  953,  68  Am.  St.  Rep. 

•  v.  Cornell,  54  Neb.  72,  7  1 

X.  W.  482;  Weia  v.  Ashley,  59  Neb. 

494,  -1  N.  W.  318,  80  Am.  St.  Rep. 

704;  Armstrong  v.  Mayer,  GO  Neb. 

53  N.  W.  -nil;  State  v.  Eskew, 
<;i  Neb.  COO,  90  N.  W.  629;  Omaha 
v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  73  Fed.  1013, 

.  G  A.  219,  3G  U.  S.  App.  615. 

88  State  v.  Courtney,  27  Mont  378, 
71  Pac.  308;  Horkey  v.  Kendall,  53 
Neb.  522,  7:5  N.  W.  953,  68  Am.  St. 
Rep.  623;  Ex  parte  Hewlett,  22  Nev. 

')  Pac.  96. 

89  Attorney-General  v.  Bolger,  128 
Mich.  355,  -7  N.  W.  3Q6;  Common 
Council  v.  Schmid,  128  Mich.  379, 

92  Am.  St.  Rep.  46& 

-ee  Erickson  v.  Cass  County, 

11  N.  D.  .  W.  841.     The 

titution    of  Michigan    forbids 

the  introduction  of  new  bills  after 

the  first  fifty  days  of  the  session. 

In  the  second  ease  cited  a  hill  was 

introduced   during  tin-   first    fifty 

amend  section  2  of  chapter 

4  of  the  charter  of  Detroit    This 


charter  consisted  of  37  chapters  and 
692  sections.  After  the  fifty  days 
there  was  substituted  and  passed  a 
bill  to  amend  sections  1,  2  and  13 
of  chapter  2  and  sections  1  and  25 
of  chapter  4  of  the  same  charter. 
The  act  was  held  valid  on  the 
ground  that  under  the  title  of  the 
first  bill  any  amendment  whatever 
could  be  made  to  the  charter.  Moon, 
J.,  in  a  dissenting  opinion,  say-: 
"According  to  the  contention  of 
respondents,  under  a  title  to  amend 
by  number  the  most  insignificant 
provision  of  a.  city  charter,  and  one 
about  which  the  average  citizen 
may  care  nothing,  every  section  of 
the  charter  is  open  to  amendment. 
His  right  to  choose  his  own  officers 
may,  as  in  this  case,  be  taken  from 
him  for  one,  two,  or  more  years: 
the  bonded  limit  of  the  city  ma}  I  e 
raised;  the  tax  limit  may  be  raised; 
new  boards  organized;  and  in  fact 
all  his  substantial  rights  as  a  citi- 
zen of  the  municipality  may  be 
seriously  affected.  To  make  the 
matter,  if  possible,  more  illogical,  a 
_niiiK  legislator  might  intro- 
duce a  bill  to  amend  section  2  of 
chapter  25,  which  refers  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  boulevard,   and 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  237 

to  amend  specified  sections  a  new  section  cannot  be  added,90 
even  though  the  matter  of  the  new  section  is  germane  to 
the  sections  amended  and  might  have  been  enacted  as  an 
amendment  to  one  of  the  sections.91  But  in  Indiana  it  is 
held  that  under  such  a  title  new  sections  may  be  added 
which  are  germane  to  the  subject  expressed  in  the  title  of 
the  original  act.92  Where  the  section  is  specified,  matter 
cannot  be  introduced  by  way  of  amendment  to  such  section 
which  is  provided  for  elsewhere  in  the  act.  Thus  an  act  to 
amend  sections  10,  12  and  14  of  an  act  in  regard  to  licens- 
ing occupations  brought  into  these  sections  by  amendment 
licenses  for  the  business  of  refining  sugar  and  molasses, 
which  was  provided  for  in  section  11  of  the  original  act. 
This  was  held  to  be  void,  as  not  within  the  title,  and  the 
court  says:  "When  this  act  was  passed  the  general  public 
and  each  person  pursuing  any  of  the  businesses  mentioned 
therein  were  advised  of  the  exact  situation  and  placed  in  a 
position  to  take  steps  to  thereafter  maintain,  alter  or  repeal 
the  act  as  the  different  interests  might  be  affected.  The 
general  public  and  each  individual  concerned  was  called 
upon  to  watch  subsequent  legislation  concerning  licenses. 
If  the  title  of  a  proposed  law  should  give  notice  of  an  inten- 
tion to  amend  or  repeal  generally  the  preceding  act,  every 
interest  involved  should  be  placed  upon  the  alert  and  warned 
of  a  possible  injurious  change  in  the  law.  If,  however,  the 
title  of  the  proposed  law  should  give  notice  of  an  intention 
simply  to  amend  a  particular  section  of  the  bill,  then  all 
parties  other  than  those  interested  in  the  subject-matter 
contained  in  that  particular  section  would  be  thrown  off 
their  guard,  and,  being  led  to  believe  they  had  no  interest 
in  the  new  statute,  would  take  no  steps  looking  to  their 
own  protection.     If,  under  the  title  to  a  bill  to  amend  simply 

introduce  in  the  body  of  the  act  v.  Aspen  Min.  &  C.  Co.,  3  Colo.  A  pp. 

provisions  abolishing  the  recorder's  223,  32  lac-.  717. 

court,  amending  the  law  in  regard  91  Shepherd  v.  Shepherd,  4  Kan. 

to  sewers,  etc."  p.  401.  App.  540,  45  Pac.  658. 

estate  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  115  »-' Lewis  v.  State,  148  Ind.  346,  47 

Ala.  250,  22  So.  589;  County  Com'rs  N.  E.  675. 


TITLE  OF   ACTS. 

:i  1  of  a  given  law,  which  section  afTccts  only  specified 
or  deals  with  a  particular  Bubject,  distinct  matters 
which  are  contained  in  and  specially  provided  for  in  an- 
other section,  and  winch  concerned  different  sets  of  persons, 
could,  alter  being  dealt  with  differently  from  what  they 
in  their  proper  section,  be  transferred  over  and  inserted 
into  *  section  I,' as  so  altered,  the  parties  concerned  in  this 
change  might  be  greatly  deceived  and  ruined  without  their 
knowledge."        A  contrary  view  is  taken  in  Kentucky." 

Where  the  title  of  the  amendatory  act  indicates  a  purpose 
to  amend  generally,  that  is,  where  the  title  is  to  amend  a 
specified  aet.  giving  the  title,  it  is  no  objection  that  a  par- 
ticular amendment  is  not  germane  to  the  section  amended, 
if  it  is  within  the  title  of  the  original  act.fl5  An  act  to 
am-  nA  several  sections  of  a  code,  which  are  cognate  or  re- 
lated to  each  other,  is  not  open  to  the  objection  that  it  em- 
es  a  plurality  of  subjects.90  An  act  to  amend  sections 
177"  and  17S2  inclusive  was  held  to  include  the  intermedi- 
ate sections.97 

140.  Effect  of  title  indicating  the  amendments  to 
he  made  —  Whether  a  limitation. —  Where  the  title  of  the 
amendatory  act  recites  the  title  of  the  act  to  be  amended 
and  also  specifies  the  amendments  to  be  made,  the  legisla- 

93  State  v.  Am.  Sugar  Ref.  Co.,  legislation  in  question  was  pi 

lnt»  La.  558,  56 1,  31  So.  181.    To  same  under  either  title,  and  the  act  was 

:   Ex  parte  Reynolds,  87  Ala.  sustained. 

.  335.  ite  v.  Cornell,  54  Neb.  72,  74 
MHoskins  v.  Crabtree,  103  Ky.  N.  W.    1.S2:    State    v.    Madson,  43 
117.  44  S.  W.  434,  82  Am.  St.  Rep.  Minn.  438,  45  N.  W.  856. 
576.    In  this  case  the  title  was,  "An  96Hotchkiss  v.  Marion,  12  Mont. 
amend  and  re-enact  article  218,  29  Pac.  821;  State  v.  Brown,  41 
nt  an  act  entitle  I  'An  ad  re-  La.  Ann.  771,  0  So.  638;  Common- 
er to  and  entitled  husband  and  wealth  v.  Brown,  91  Va.  762,  21  S. 
wife,' approved  May  16,  1893."  This  E.  357.     And  see  Lewis  v.  Dunne, 
anged  the  rights  of  the  wile  134  Cal.  291,  66  Pac.  478,  86  Am.  St. 
in  the  deceased  husband's  property.  Rep.  L'"»7,  55  L.  R.  A.  833;  Trumble 
This  matter  was  already  provided  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  340,  55  N.W. 869. 
for  in  a  statute  on  descent  an  I  dis-  97  State  v.  Long,  21  Mont.  26,  52 
■  ion.     It    was   held   that   the  Pac.  645. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  239 

sure  is  limited  to  the  amendments  specified,  and  anything  out- 
side of  these  is  void.98  An  act  was  entitled  "A  supplement 
to  an  act  entitled  'An  act  to  incorporate  the  Union  Passen- 
ger Kailway  Co.,'  approved  April  8,  1864,  authorizing  said 
company  to  extend  their  track"  The  act  authorized  the  ex- 
tension and  also  undertook  to  relieve  the  company  from 
paving  any  street  that  had  never  been  previously  paved. 
The  latter  was  held  not  within  the  title  and  the  court  says: 
"The  act  of  1S65,  being  entitled  a  supplement  to  the  act  of 
1864  incorporating  the  railway  company,  gave  notice  of  its 
general  purpose,  but  when  the  title  went  on  to  declare  that 
it  was  a  supplement  '  authorizing  said  company  to  extend 
their  track,'  it  limited  the  notice  to  that  particular  feature 
of  the  company's  charter,  and  diverted  attention  from  the 
matters  included  in  the  second  paragraph."99 

§  141.  Whether  title  specifying  section  is  sufficient, 
without  giving  title  or  subject  of  act  amended  —  Refer- 
ence to  codes  and  compilations,  official  and  otherwise.— 
It  is  held  by  the  great  majority  of  cases  that  it  is  sufficient 
for  the  title  of  an  act  to  amend  a  code  or  revision,  to  specify 
the  section  to  be  amended,  without  giving  the  title  of  the 
chapter  or  division  to  which  it  belongs  or  in  any  way  indi- 
cating the  subject-matter  of  the  section.  Under  such  a  title 
any  legislation  is  proper  which  is  germane  to  the  section 
specified.1      Such  titles  as   the   following   have  been    ap- 

98Niles  v.  Steere,  102  Mich.  328,  i  Mobile  &  Girard  R.  R.  Co.   v. 

60  N.  W.  771;  Davey  v.  Ruffe!,  162  Commissioners'  Court,  97  Ala.  105. 

Pa,  St.  443,  29  Atl.  894;  Abernathy  11  So.  732;  People  v.  Parvin,  74  Cal. 

v.   Mitchell,   113  Ga.  127,  38  S.  E.  549,  16  Pac.  490;  Clay  v.  Central  R. 

303;    Corscadden   v.    Haswell,    88  R.  &  B.  Co.,  84  Ga.  345, 10  S.  E.  967: 

App.  Div.  158;   Moore  v.  Moore,  23  Foster  v.  State,  99  Ga.  56,  25  S.  E. 

Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  73.  613;  State  v.  Brown,  41  La.  Ann. 

9a  Philadelphia  v.  Market  Co.,  161  771,  6  So.  638;  State  v.  Read,  49  La. 

Pa.  St.  522,  527,  29  Atl.  286.    Com-  Ann.  1535,  22  So.  761;  Garrison  v. 

pare  English  &  Scottish  Am.  Mort.  Hill,  81    Md.  551,  32  Atl.  191 ;  Iowa 

Co.  v.  Hardy,  93  Tex.  289,  55  S.  W.  Savings  &   Loan  Ass'n  v.  Curtis, 

169;    Citizens'     Savings    Bank    v.  107  Iowa,  504,  78  N.  W.  208;  Ross  v. 

Auditor-General,  123  Mich.  511,  82  Aguirre.    191   U.   S.  60;    State    v. 

N.  W.  214.  Scott,  32  Wash.  279;   Beatrice  v. 


24o 


I  I  I  1.1'.    OF    Ac  is. 


proved:     "An  act  to  amend  section    L950  of  tho  code  of 
Tenm  "An  act  to  amend  section  58,  ohapter  45  of 

the  code  o\'  West  Virginia;"8  "An  act  to  amend  and  re- 
enact  section  910  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1S70."4  In  tho 
case  last  referred  to  the  court  says:  "The  manifest  and 
sole  object  of  the  act  being  to  amend  and  re-enact  section 
:'lit  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a 
efficient  mode  of  expressing  that  intention  than  the 
language  used  in  the  title  of  the  act  now  under  considera- 
tion. To  require  a  more  extended  expression  of  the  object 
intended  would  certainly  not  add  clearness  to  the  title,  but 
would,  on  the  contrary,  incumber  it,  and  destroy  the  unity 
of  the  expression  which  is  contemplated  by  the  requirement 
of  the  constitution  on  this  subject." 

So  a  section  of  an  act  may  be  amended  under  a  title  re- 
Perring  to  the  number  given  the  section  in  a  private  but 
authorized  compilation  of  statutes.5  Thus,  one  William  Lair 
Hill  was  authorized  to  make  such  a  compilation  of  the  laws 


Masslicb,  108  Fed.  743,  47  C.  C.  A. 

-  te  v.  Olsen,  58  Minn.  1,  09 
X.  W.  634;  Eaton  v.  Guaranty  Co., 
11  X.  I).  79,  88  X.  W.  1029;  1  learn 
v.  Louttit,  42  Ore.  572,  72  Pac,  132; 
Utley  v.  Ca  vender,  31  S.  G  282, 
'a  S.  E.  9")?:  Hardaway  v.  Lilly 
(Tenn.),  4S  S.  W.  712;  Nichols  v. 
T<  x.  ('rim.  Rep.  391,  23  S. 
W.  680;  English  &  Scottish  Am. 
Mort.  Co.  v.  Hardy,93  Tex.  289,  55 
S.  W.  169;  Tabor  v.  State,  34  Tex. 
Crim.  Rep.  631,  31  S.  W.  66 
Am.  St.  Rep.  720;  Heath  v.  John- 
son.  36  W.    Va.  788,  16  S.  E.  980; 


2 Hardaway  v.  Lilly  (Term.),  48 
S.  W.  712. 

3  Heath  v.  Johnson,  36  W.  Va. 
782,  15  S.  E.  980. 

4  State  v.  Brown,  41  La.  Ann.  771, 
6  So.  638. 

s  Otis  v.  People,  196  111.  542,  63 
N.  E.  1053;  Hall  v.  Leland,64  Minn. 
71,66  X.  W.  202;  Ex  parte  Howe, 
26  Ore.  181,  37  Pa  .  5:56;  Hearn  v. 
Louttit,  42  Ore.  572,  72  Pac.  13l>. 
In  the  first  case  cited  the  court 
says:  "  But,  while  the  General  Stat- 
utes of  1878  are  a  mere  compilation, 
yet  by  the  mass  of  people,  as  well 


McCalla  v.  Bane,  45  Fed.  828;  In  re  as  the  legislature,  they  have  been 
:i     r>. -1    Fed    B56;   Steele   Co.  v.  generally  looked  upon  and  treated 
Erskine,  98   Fed.  215,39  C.  C.  A.  as  original  enactments.  Our  session 
173.     But   a  title  which    does    not  laws  are  full  of  amendatory  stat- 
ute any  act,  code  or  revision  utes  whose  titles  refer  to  them,  and 
mplete.      Gunter   v.   Texas  never  once  allude  to  the  original 
&  Mortg.  Co.,  82  Tex.  496,  17  acts.     Public  policy  and  necessity, 
S.  W.  840.  if  nothing  else,  require  us  to  hold 


TITLE   OF    ACTS.  241 

of  Oregon.  He  did  so,  and  the  printed  volume  was  entitled 
on  the  back,  "  Hill's  Annotated  Laws  of  Oregon."  An  act 
was  entitled,  "  An  act  to  amend  section  2465  of  Hill's  An- 
notated Laws  of  Oregon."  This  section  was  section  8  of 
"  An  act  in  relation  to  count}'  treasurers."  The  above  title 
of  the  amendatory  act  was  held  sufficient.6  In  the  same 
state  there  existed  a  code  of  civil  procedure  and  a  code  of 
criminal  procedure,  both  of  which  were  incorporated  with 
other  laws  in  Hill's  compilation,  in  which  the  sections  were 
numbered  consecutive!}'  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  compilation.  An  act  was  passed  entitled  "An  act  to 
amend  section  711  of  the  Codes  and  General  Laws  of  Ore- 
gon." There  was  such  a  section  in  each  of  the  codes  as  well 
as  in  Hill's  compilation,  but  there  was  no  code,  compilation  or 
revision  entitled  "  The  Codes  and  General  Laws  of  Oregon." 
The  amendment  was  germane  to  section  711  of  Hill's  com- 
pilation, but  the  court  held  the  act  void  because  there  was 
no  collection  or  compilation  of  statutes  entitled  as  in  the 
act.  The  court,  while  affirming  the  rule  stated  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  section,  adds:  "But  we  do  not  feel  justified 
in  extending  the  rule,  and  holding  that  any  reference  from 
which  it  may  be  conjectured  or  argued  that  a  certain  section 
of  a  certain  law  or  compilation  was  intended  will  answer."7 
In  Indiana  and  New  York  such  titles  are  held  to  be  in- 
sufficient. Thus,  "  An  act  supplementary  to  chapter  489  of 
the  laws  of  1808"  was  held  to  express  no  subject  whatever.8 
So  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  amend  section  640  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  1881." 9  The  supreme  court  of  "Wash- 
ington territory  ruled  the  same  way,10  but  the  supreme  court 

that  tlie  title  to  an  act  purporting  8New  York  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co., 

to  amend  any  part  of  such  com-  143  N.  Y.  1,  37  N.  E.  494.     To  same 

pilat ion  is  sufficient,  as  it  would  be,  effect:    People  v.   Hills,  35  N.  Y. 

if,  instead  of  being  a  compilation,  449. 

it  was  original  legislation."  9  O'Mara  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.,  150 

e  Ex  parte  Howe,  26  Ore.  181,  37  Ind.  648,  50  N.  E.  821.     Also  Boring 

Pac.  536.  v.  State,  141  Ind.  610,  41  N.  E.  270. 

"Hearn  v.  Louttit,  42  Ore.  572,  '"Harlandv.  Territory,  3  Wash. 

72  Pac.  132.  Ter.   131,   13  Pac.  453;  Rumsey  v. 
16 


TITLE    OF    A.  is. 


of  the  state  at  first  held  otherwise,11  though  still  applying 
»ld  rule  to  territorial  acts,"  but  in  a  late  case  has  re- 
verted to  the  earlier  dootrine."  Of  course  all  difficulty  is 
avoided  if  the  title  of  the  amendatory  act  recites  the  title 
ol'  the  chapter  to  which  the  section  belongs,  or  otherwise 
indicates  its  subject  matter.11  The  title  of  a  repealing  stat- 
ute is  sufficient  which  designates  the  sections  only." 

142.  Title  of  amendatory  acts  —  illustrations  and 
miscellaneous  cases. —  An  act  entitled  to  amend  the  char- 
ter of  a  named  municipal  corporation  may  contain  a  pro- 
vision changing  the  territorial  boundary  of  the  municipal- 
ity.16 Under  such  a  title  provisions  have  sometimes  been 
enacted  curing  defects  in  and  validating  municipal  proceed- 
ings taken  of  course  subsequent  to  the  enactment  of  the 
original  charter.  Such  provisions  are  germane  to  the  ob- 
of  the  incorporation,  but  not  to  the  function  or  act  of 
creating  a  corporation,  prescribing  and  distributing  its 
powers,  and  regulating  their  exercise.     Such  curative  pro- 


Territory,  3  Wash.  Ter.  332,  21  Pao. 

15a 

i'  Marston  v.  Humes,  3  Wash.  2G7, 

"State  v.  Halbert,  14  Wash.  300. 
44  Pac.   538;   Poncin   v.   Furth,   15 
Wash.  201,  4G  Pac.  241. 
"State    v.    Superior    Court.    28 
7,  63  Pac.  957,  92  Am.  St. 
Rep.  831.     The  court  says  in  this 
"  What  is  the  significance  of 
the  word  '.subject'  in  this  connec- 
tion'.'    Webster  defines  it  as 'that 
of  which  anything  is  affirmed  or 
cated;  the  theme  of  a  propo- 
sition or  discourse;  that  which  is 
spoken  of.'   To  say  that  mere  refer- 
to  a   numbered  section  em- 
bodies the  idea  of  a  theme,  pr 
tion  or  discourse,  it  seems  to  us,  is 
I  ned   by  the  ordinary  un- 
tanding  of  those   terms     The 
ae  of  a  legislative  art  is  that 


of  which  it  treats,  and  an  amending 
act  treats  of  the  theme  covered  by 
the  act  sought  to  be  amended.  Wo 
therefore  see  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that  the  title  of  an 
amending  act  must  contain  some 
words  which  indicate  the  theme  or 
proposition  of  which  the  act  sought 
to  be  amended  treats." 

14  Heller  v.  People,  2  Colo.  App. 
459,  31  Pac.  773;  In  re  White,  33 
Neb.  812,  51  N.  W.  287;  Common- 
wealth v.  Brown,  91  Va.  702,  21 
S.  E.  357. 

1  State  v.  Garrett,  29  La.  Ann. 
G:J7. 

w  Whiting  v.  Mt.  Pleasant,  11 
Iowa,  482;  Morford  v.  Unger,  8 
Iowa.  82;  Swift  v.  Newport,  7  Bush, 
37;  Humbolt  County  v.  County 
Com'rs,  6  New  30;  Roby  v.  Shep- 
ard,  42  W.  Va.  286,  20  S.  E.  278. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  213 

visions  are  retrospective,  and  are  not  of  the  nature  of  a 
charter,17  while  the  original  act  is  constitutive  and  wholly 
prospective.18  An  act  was  entitled  "  An  act  to  amend  the 
charter  of  the  town  of  Bessemer,  and  to  reincorporate  the 
same  as  the  city  of  Bessemer,  and  to  establish  a  charter 
therefor.1'  There  was  no  act  to  incorporate  the  town  of 
Bessemer.  It  was  held  that  the  words  as  to  amendment 
should  be  treated  as  surplusage  and  that  the  act  was  valid 
as  an  original  and  substantive  piece  of  legislation.19  The 
charter  of  Mankato,  Minn.,  made  no  provision  for  a  mu- 
nicipal court.  Later  an  act  was  passed  to  establish  such  a 
court.  It  was  held  that  under  a  title  to  amend  the  charter 
of  the  city  legislation  dealing  with  the  municipal  court  was 
void.20  But  in  another  case  it  was  held  that  an  independent 
act,  which  in  reality  was  amendatory  of  a  private  charter, 
could  be  dealt  with  under  a  title  to  amend  the  charter.21  A 
supplement  to  an  act  concerning  inns  and  taverns  made  it 
a  misdemeanor  to  sell  intoxicating  liquors  from  any  ambu- 
latory conveyance;  held  not  within  the  title.22  An  act, 
which  by  its  title  relates  to  certain  counties,  cannot  be 
amended  under  the  same  title  so  as  to  relate  to  other  coun- 
ties.23 Where  the  title  is  to  amend  chapter  147,  an  amend- 
ment of  chapter  117  is  void.24  So  where  the  title  is  to 
amend  certain  sections,  and  the  enactment  merely  repeals 
those  sections.25     Where  the  object  is  to  amend  both  the 

17  Parfitt  v.  Ferguson,  3  A  pp.  Div.  20  state  v.  Porter,  53  Minn.  279, 55 
176, 38  N.  Y.  S.  466.     See  post,  §  675.  N.  W.  134. 

18  Williamson  v.  Keokuk,  44  21  Cassell  v.  Lexington,  etc.  Turn- 
Iowa,  8S;  In  re  Kiernan,  6  T.  &  C.  pike  Co.,  10  Ky.  L.  R.  486,  9  S.  W. 
3-20;  State  v.  Newark,  34  N.  J.  L.  502.  701. 

2:36,  and    Hum  bolt   Co.  v.  County  22  Mack  v.  State,  60  N.  J.  L.  28, 36 

Oom'rs,   G    New   30,  are    liable  to  Ati.  1088. 

criticism  for  embracing  provisions  2i  Farson  v.  South  Brook,  54  Minn. 

which  are  not  strictly  cognate  with  117,  55  N.  W.  864. 

the  purpose  of  the  act  as  stated  in  24  State  v.  Looker,  54  Kan.  227, 38 

the  title.     See  Dolese  v.  Pierce,  124  Pad  288. 

111.  140,  16  N.  E.  218.  "Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16  Colo. 

19  Judson  v.  Bessemer,  87  Ala.  240,  471,27  Pac.  1055.  Vice  versa,  sec- 
6  So.  267.  tions  cannot  be  amended  under  a 


i  n  LB   03     H  is. 

and  body  of  an  act,  the  title  <>f  the  amendatory  act 
Bhould  set  forth  the  nature  of  the  amendment  to  the  title, 

rwise  there  is  nothing  in  the  title  to  give  notice  of 
what  may  be  expected  by  way  of  amendment*  to  the  law. 
Chapter  257  of  the  general  laws  of  Minnesota  of  L899 
was  an  act  "to  prevent  the  use  of  chemical  agents  as  pre- 
servatives in  milk,  cream,  cheese  and  butter."  In  1901, 
under  a  title  "to  amend  the  title  and  section  1  of  chapter 
257,  genera]  laws  of  1899,"  there  was  added  to  the  title  of 
the  original  act  the  words,  "  or  food  products  of  any  nature 
whatever,"  and  the  body  of  the  act  was  extended  accord- 
ingly. The  act  was  held  void  because  the  title  was  insuf- 
ficient to  indicate  the  wide  extension  of  the  provisions  of 
the  act.28  Where  the  title  purported  that  an  act  was  a  sup- 
plement to  a  supplement,  it  was  held  that  it  must  be  ger- 
mane to  the  latter,  and  that  it  was  not  enough  that  it  was 
germane  to  the  original  act.27 

143  (98).  Whether  an  act  embraces  a  plurality  of 
subjects. —  Similar  subjects  may  be  grouped  and  treated  as  a 
class  for  general  legislation,  embracing  ail  or  a  part.  There 
is  evident  in  the  later  constitutions  a  strong  preference  for 
such  legislation,  and  against  special,  where  general  acts  are 
appropriate  and  practicable.  Generalizations  to  answer  all 
cognate  wants  require  preparation  and  reflection.  A  par- 
ticular need  first  attracts  the  attention  of  the  legislator,  and 
when  he  proceeds  to  frame  a  measure  with  reference  to  it, 
how  comprehensive  he  will  make  it  depends  on  his  leisure, 
his  courage,  his  capacity  and  his  public  spirit.  There  is  a 
marked  difference  between  an  act  treating  of  individual 
subjects  as  such,  and  embracing  more  than  one,  and  an  act 
which  aims  at  a  single  purpose  involving  a  plurality  of  sub- 
jects, and  concerning  all  of  them  or  several  of  them.     The 

title  to  repeal  them.     Trumble  v.  ^New  York  &  Greenwood  Lake 

Tram  hi.-.  :j?  Neh  ?J0.  55  N.  W.  869.  Ivy.    Co.    v.  Montclair,  47  N.  J.  Eq.. 

Mate  v.  Humbert,  3G  Minn.  399,  591,  21  Atl.  49a 
W.  1055,  1133. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  245 

former  is  generally  multifarious;28  the  latter  valid  as  deal- 
ing with  a  unity.  One  general  law  may  provide  how  all 
municipal  corporations  may  be  organized,  how  all  private 
corporations  may  be  formed;  but  one  act  to  create  two  cor- 
porations is  void  for  duplicity.29  One  act  may  define  all  the 
crimes,  or  all  belonging  to  one  class; 30  but  one  act  which 
creates  two  separate  offenses  deals  with  two  subjects.31  The 
multiplicity  of  persons  or  things  which  will  be  affected  by 
the  legislation  is  immaterial  if  the  subject  be  single.  An 
act  authorizing  two  counties  to  issue  bonds  to  erect  a  court- 
house in  each  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject  —  that 
of  building  court-houses.32  Such  an  act  might  properly  em- 
brace all  counties.  That  it  is  not  so  general,  and  only  applies 
to  two,  does  not  affect  this  question.  It  may  have  been  as 
extensive  as  the  occasion  in  the  state  required.  But  where 
the  legislation  concerns  separate  things  without  unity  in 
any  consideration  or  purpose,  it  is  within  the  constitutional 
inhibition.  Thus  a  law  provided  for  the  expenditure  of  cer- 
tain highway  taxes  on  two  distinct  state  roads,  and  for  the 
location  and  construction  of  a  third  state  road,  and  for  the 
expenditure  of  certain  other  taxes  upon  that;  it  was  held  to 
embrace  more  than  one  subject.  The  three  roads  were 
held  to  be  "  three  distinct  objects  of  legislation,"  which 
might  with  entire  propriety  have  been  provided  for  by 
separate  acts;  and,  indeed,  ought  to  have  been,  in  view  of 
the  care  which  is  taken  by  the  constitution  to  compel  each 
distinct  object  of  legislation  to  be  considered  separately.33 

28  In  re  Paul,  94  N.  Y.  497;  State  the  court,  said:  "These  objects  have 

v.  Harrison,  11  La.  Ann.  722.  certainly  no  necessary  connection, 

19 King  v.  Banks,  61  Ga.   20;  Ex  and,  being  grouped  together  in  one 

parte  Connor,  51  id.  571.  bill,   legislators  are  not  only   pre- 

30  State  v.  Brassfield,  81  Mo.  162,  eluded   from  expressing  by  their 
51  Am.  Rep.  234.  votes  their  opinion  upon  each  sepa- 

31  In  re  Paul,  94  N.  Y.  497.  rately,  but  they  are  so  united  as  to 

32  Allen   v.   Tison,    50    Ga.    374;  unite   a  combination    of   interest 
Weyand  v.  Stover,  35  Kan.  545.  among  the  friends  of  each  in  order 

33  People  v.  Denahy,  20  Mich.  349.  to  secure  the  success  of  all,  when, 
C'ooley,  J.,  delivering  the  opinion  of  perhaps,   neither  could   be  passed 


11  ll.K    OV    At   IS. 


In  I  taubman  v.  Smith"  the  ad  was  entitled  "  to  transfer  the 
charge  and  keeping  of  the  jails  and  the  custody  of  the  prison- 
bhe  counties  of  Essex  and  Hudson  Prom  the  sheriff  to  the 
board  of  chosen  freeholders,  and  for  the  employment  of  pris- 
oners, and  to  regulate  the  term  of  service  therein  "  Magie,  J., 
said,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court:  "  I  am  compelled 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  legislation  in  question  is  in  obvious 
opposition  to  the  constitutional  provision  in  one  or  the  other 
of  its  phases.  For,  if  the  object  of  this  act  may  be  taken  to 
be  the  regulation  of  the  jails  and  the  custody  of  the  prisoners 
in  the  two  counties  named  in  the  first  eight  sections,  then  the 
ninth  section,  in  providing  Tor  the  extension  of  the  scheme  to 


separately.  The  evils  of  that  spe- 
cies of  omnibus  legislation  which 
the  constitution  designed  to  pro- 
hibit are  all  invited  by  acts  thus 
framed;  and  although  we  have  no 
in  to  suppose  that  those  evils 
actually  existed  in  the  present 
case,  or  that  there  was  any  pur- 
pose on  the  part  of  the  legislature 
to  disregard  the  constitutional  re- 
quirement, yet  we  cannot  be  gov- 
erned by  these  considerations,  if 
t  lie  act  is  of  a  class  which  is  act- 
ually prohibited. 

'The  act.  it  will  be  seen,  is  not  one 
which  establishes  a  general  system 
lor  the  expenditure  of  non-resident 
highway  taxes,  or  for  the  construc- 
tion of  state  roads.  It  singles  out 
two  state  nails  and  provides  for  the 
expenditure  of  certain  non-resident 
highway  taxes  upon  each.    It  then 

eds   to   provide  for  the  loca- 
tion and  construction   of   a   third 

road  and  the  expenditure  of 
■  ertain  other  taxes  upon  that. 
'•  The  three   objects  are  as  sepa- 

ind  distinct  as  the  three  great 

of  railroad  crossing  the  state, 


and  the  same  arguments  which 
might  be  advanced  in  support  of 
this  act  would  support  also  an  act 
which  would  single  out  those  tin  ei 
railroads  for  special  and  peculiar 
legislation  in  respect  to  which  the 
roads  have  no  necessary  connec- 
tion. A  combination  of  that  de- 
scription would  at  once  be  pro- 
nounced unconstitutional  by  gen- 
eral consent,  but  would,  not  differ 
at  all,  in  principle,  from  the  present 
act,  in  which  the  combination  of 
objects  is  equally  apparent,  and 
equally  unnecessary  for  the  proper 
I  mi  pose  of  legislation.  The  only 
difference  there  could  be  in  the 
two  cases  would  be  that,  in  a  case 
of  a  combination  of  interests 
among  powerful  corporations  to 
secure  favorable  legislation  on  their 
behalf,  a  purpose  to  evade  the  con- 
stitutional requirement  would  gen- 
erally be  very  apparent,  while  in 
this  case  we  do  not  imagine  it  to 
have  existed  at  all;  but  the  ques- 
tion of  violation  of  the  constitution 
is  not  a  question  of  intent." 
3*  47  N.  J.  L.  200. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


247 


other  counties,  introduces  another  and  different  object,  and 
the  act  embraces  more  than  one  object.35 

"  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  object  of  this  act  may  be  taken  to 
be  the  regulation  of  the  jails  and  then  of  the  prisoners  in  all 
the  counties  of  the  state,  then  that  object  is  not  expressed  in 
the  title.  If  such  was  the  object  of  the  act,  the  fact  that  with 
respect  to  some  counties  it  was  mandatory,  and  with  respect 
to  others  optional,  might  not  be  objectionable.  The  matters 
comprehended  in  the  act  would  seem  to  be  germane  to  such 
an  object.  But  the  title  does  not  express  such  an  object."  The 
act  had  more  scope  than  the  title,  and  the  excess  was  so  much 
as  applied  to  a  county  not  named  in  the  title. 

The  following  acts  were  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject, 
the  basis  for  the  claim  of  duplicity  being  indicated  by  italics: 
An  act  for  the  formation  of  corporations  for  manufacturing 
and  mercantile  purposes ; 36  an  act  for  the  preservation  of  fish 
and  game;  37  an  act  to  acquire  rights  of  fishing  common  to  all 
in  the  fresh  water  lakes  in  certain  counties,  to  acquire  lands 
adjoining  thereto  for  public  use  and  enjoyment  in  connection 
therewith  and  to  regulate  the  same,  and  providing  for  county 
lake  and  park  hoards,  etc. ; 38  an  act  to  provide  for  the  collec- 
tion of  taxes  heretofore  and  hereafter  levied ; 39  an  act  fixing 
the  number  of  directors  in  public  school  boards  in  certain  cities, 
and  providing  for  the  election  of  such  directors,  and  for  dis- 
trictingsaid  cities  therefor; 40  an  act  providing  for  the  deposit 
in  banks  of  state  and  county  funds  by  county  treasurers;41 
an  act  to  protect  hotel,  inn  and  boarding-house  keepers;  42  an 
act  fixing  the  time  for  the  opening  and  closing  of  saloons  and 
gaminghouses; 43  an  act  to  authorize  and  regulate  the  business 

»  In  re  Sackett,  etc.  Sts.,  74  N.  Y.  »»  Aplin  v.  Stiles,  83  Mich.  460,  47 

95.  N.  W.  241. 

sojenking    v.   Osman,   79  Mich.  *»  State  v.  Miller,  100  Mo.  439,  13 

305,  44  N.  W.  787.  S.  W.  677. 

37  Ah  King  v.  Police  Court,  139  41  Hopkins  v.  Scott,  38  Neb.  661, 

Cal.  718,  73  Pac.  587.  57  N.  W.  391. 

»s  Albright   v.   Sussex  Co.  Lake  estate  v.  Yard  ley,  95  Tenn.  546, 

and  Park  Commission,  68  N.  J.  L.  32  S.  W.  481,  34  L.  R  A.  656. 

523,  53  AtL  612.  43Ex  parte   Livingston,  20  Nev. 

282,  21  Pac.  322. 


TITLE   OF    ACTS. 

,  credit  companies,  and  guaranty  aesoci- 

:  M  ;m  art  creating  the  office  of  county  controller,  trans- 

ferring  to  that  officer  the  duties  of  county  auditor  and  dbol- 

\ng  the  latter  office;  u  an  act  to  regulate  the  jurisdiction, 
duties  and  compensation  of  justices  of  th<  peace  and  consta- 
..a  act  which  legalises  proceedings  for  a  local  improve- 
ment and  provides  for  a  re-assessment;*1  an  act  to  amend 
both  the  title  and  the  body  of  an  act.4*  AYhere  it  had  long 
bi  en  the  policy  of  the  state  to  work  convicts  on  the  public 
loads,  an  act  relating  to  the  public  roads  of  counties  and  the 
management  of  county  workhouses  was  held  to  embrace  but 
one  subject.49  An  amendatory  act  in  relation  to  railroads 
provided  in  substance  as  follows:  Jirst,it  made  it  the  duty  of 
the  railway  companies  of  the  state  to  remove  or  destroy  all 
dead  or  dry  vegetation  and  undergrowth  upon  the  right  of 
way.  and  enforced  this  duty  by  an  appropriate  penalty;  sec- 

'.  it  subjected  any  railroad  company  that  failed  to  con- 
struct ditches  and  drains  to  carry  off  the  surface  water  ob- 
structed by  its  road-bed  to  a  penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars, 
and  gave  to  the  land-owner  a  right  of  action  against  the  com- 
pany for  all  damages  caused  by  such  failure.  The  act  was 
held  to  embrace  but  one  subject,  the  protection  of  land  and 
crops  in  proximity  to  railroads  from  damage  by  fire  and 
water  caused  by  the  construction  and  operation  of  the  road.50 
An  act  to  amend  certain  sections,  repeal  certain  sections  and 
to  add  new  sections  to  a  chapter  of  the  code  entitled  "  Ovs- 
ters,"  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject.51    And  generally 

**  State  v.  Morgan.  2  S.  D.  32,  48  <8  Dyker  Meadow  L.  &  I.  Co.  v. 

N.  W.  314  Cook,  3  App.  Div.  164,  38  N.  Y.  S. 

«  Lloyd  v.  Smith,  176  Pa.  St.  213,  222, 

35  Atl.  199.  « Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  Tenn. 

«  Herbf-rt  v.  Baltimore  County,  82.  05  S.  W.  871. 

'■<:  Md  so  Cox  v.   Hannibal  &  St.  Jo.  R. 

"Richman     v.    Supervisors,    77  R.  Co.,  174  Mo.  588,  74  S.  W.  854 

Iowa,  513,  42  N.  W.  422,  14  Am.  St.  61  Commonwealth  v.  Brown,   91 

1LR  A.  445;  In  re  Pied-  Va.  762,  21  S.  E.  357. 
mont  Ave.  East.  59  Minn.  522,  01  N. 
W.  07a 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  240 

an  amendatory  act  is  Dot  open  to  the  charge  of  duplicity  be- 
cause it  makes  two  or  more  amendments,  if  the  sections 
amended  relate  to  a  common  subject.52 

It  is  difficult  to  lay  down  a  general  rule  on  the  subject  of 
practical  utility.  The  supreme  court  of  Minnesota  says: 
"To  constitute  duplicity  of  subject,  an  act  must  embrace 
two  or  more  dissimilar  and  discordant  subjects  that  by  no 
fair  intendment  can  be  considered  as  having  any  legitimate 
connection  with  or  relation  to  each  other.  All  that  is  nec- 
essary is  that  the  act  should  embrace  some  one  general 
subject;  and  by  this  is  meant  merely,  that  all  matters 
treated  of  should  fall  under  some  one  general  idea,  be  so 
connected  with  or  related  to  each  other,  either  logically  or 
in  popular  understanding,  as  to  be  parts  of,  or  germane  to, 
one  general  subject."53  And  the  supreme  court  of  Indiana 
gives  the  following  rule:  "The  proper  test  in  all  questions 
of  this  sort  is,  does  the  body  of  the  particular  legislation  em- 
brace more  than  one  general  subject,  and  such  matters  as 
are  calculated  to  assist  in  reaching  the  single  object  intended, 
and  is  that  subject  disclosed  bj'  the  title  ?  If  thus  tested  it 
appears  that  an  act  embraces  but  one  subject  and  matters 
properly  connected  therewith,  and  that  that  subject  is  shown 
by  the  title,  it  must  be  held  to  be  constitutional;  otherwise 
not."54 

52  State  v.  Brown,  41  La.  Ann.  771.  Ala.  392,  32  So.  C87;  Vincenheller 
6  So.  638;  Hotchkiss  v.  Marion,  12  v.  Reagan,  69  Ark.  460,64S.W.  278; 
Mont.  218,  29  Pac.  821.  Ex  parte  Pfirrmann,  134  Cal.  143. 

53  Johnson  v.  Harrison,  47  Minn.  G6  Pac.  205;  Reed  v.  McCrary,  94 
575,  578,  50  N.  W.  923,  28  Am.  St.  Ga.  487,  21  S.  E.  232;  State  v.  San- 
Rep.  382.  ders,   42  Kan.   228,   21   Pac.   1073; 

54  Isenhour  v.  State,  157  Ind.  517,  Jockheck  v.  Shawnee  Co.  Com*rs,53 
62  N.  E.  40,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  228.  Kan.  780,  37  Pac.  621 ;  Ash  v.  Thorp, 

Thef  olio  wing  are  additional  cases  65  Kan.  60,  68  Pac.  1067;  Edwards 

in  which  the  question  was  consid-  v.  Police  Jury,  39  La.  Ann.  855,  2 

ered  and  the  acts  involved  held  to  So.  804;  Baltimore  v.  Keeley  Insti- 

embrace  but  one  subject:  State  v.  tute,  81  Md.  106,  31  Atl.  437,  27  L. 

Street,   117   Ala.   203,   23  So.   807;  R.    A.   646;     Bissell    v.   Heath,   98 

Hawkins  v.  Roberts,  122  Ala.  130,  Mich.  472,  57  N.  W.  585;  McMorran 

27  So.  327;  Mitchell  v.  State,  134  v.   Ladies  of  the  Maccabees,   117 


TITLE   OF   Ac  is. 

in  103).  Effect  of  duplicity  of  subject  in  act  or 
til  le.—  I  f  an  act  embraces  t  wo  or  more  subjects  and  two  or 
more  o(  the  same  arc  expressed  in  the  title,  the  whole  act 
:-  \  fid.55 

In  State  v.  Lancaster  Co.,M  Maxwell,  J.,  said:  "The  rule 
is  well  settled  that  where  the  title  to  an  aet  actually  indi- 
cates, and  the  act  itself  actually  includes,  two  distinct  ob- 

.  where  the  constitution  declares  it  shall  embrace  but 
one,  the  whole  act  must  be  treated  as  void,  from  the  niani- 

mpossibility  of  choosing  between  the  two  and  holding 
the  act  valid  as  to  one  and  void  as  to  the  other.57  But  this 
rule  will  apply  only  in  those  cases  where  it  is  impossible 
from  an  inspection  of  the  act  itself  to  determine  which  act, 
or  rather  which  part  of  the  act,  is  void  and  which  is  valid. 
Where  this  can  be  done  the  rule  does  not  apply,  unless  it 
shall  appear  that  the  invalid  portion  was  designed  as  induce- 
ment to  pass  the  valid,  so  that  the  whole  taken  together  will 
warrant  the  belief  that  the  legislature  would  have  passed 
the  valid  part  alone."  So  if  the  body  of  an  act  embrace 
more  than  one  subject,  and  only  one  be  mentioned  in  the 
title,  the  whole  act  will  be  void,  unless  the  subject  mentioned 

Mich.  398.  75  N.  W.  943;  Newark  v.  Ala.  539;  Builders' &  Painters' Sup- 

Mt   Pleasant  Cem.  Co.,  58  N.  J.  L.  ply  Co.  v.  Lucas,  119  Ala.  202,  24So. 

Rodebaughv.Phila-  416;    Pennington   v.   Woolfolk,  79 

delphia  Traction  Co..  190  Pa.  St.  Ky.  13;  Moore  v.  Police  Jury,  32  La. 

Atl.  953;  Commonwealth  v.  Ann.  1013;  State  v.  Ferguson.  104 

( Iharity  Bospital,  198  Pa.  St  270.  47  La.  249.  28  So.  917,  81  Am.  St.  Rep. 

AtL  980;  State  v.  Brown,  103  Tenn.  123;  State  v.  Atkins,  104  La.  37,  28 

-          ;    7;  State  v.  Iloskins,  So.  919;  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  151; 

61   S.    \V.  781;    Mc-  Skinner  v.  Wilhelm,  63  Mich.  568, 

r  v.  Advance  Thresher  Co.,  30  N.  W.  311;  State  v.  Lancaster,  17 

in  Wash.  117.  38  Pac.  76i):  State  v.  Neb.   87;  Trumble  v.  Trumble,  37 

Hall,  24  Wash   255,  64   Par.    153;  Neb.  340,  55  N.  W.  869;  In  re  Com- 

-.  Ouray  ( '•>.  Com'rs,  '.'7  Fed.  missioners,   19  N.  J.  L.  488,  10  AtL 

-  G  C.  A.  250;  Mexican  Na-  363:  Johnston  v.  Spicer,  107  N.  Y. 

tional  !:.  R.  I  ••.  v.  Jackson,  11-  Fed.  185,  13  N.  E.  753;  State  v.  McCann, 

5  G  C.    A.   315.     Many  addi-  4   Lea.   1;  Ragio  v.  State,  86  Tenn. 

■11  he  found  in  the  272,  6  S.  \V.  401. 

>ns.  w17  Neb.  87. 

dlentyne  v.  Wickershain,  75  ''"Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  147. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  251 

in  the  title  is  so  independently  treated  in  the  act  as  to  be 
capable  of  separation  from  the  other  subject.  This  result 
must  be  the  conclusion  though  the  act  be  passed  under  a 
constitution  like  that  of  California,  containing  the  condition 
added  to  the  inhibitory  clause  in  question. 
•  In  People  v.  Parks,58  McKee,  J.,  thus  characterizes  the  act 
in  question,  entitled  an  act  "to  promote  drainage:"  "It 
will  thus  be  seen  that  the  body  and  scope  of  the  act  included 
a  combination  of  subjects;  the  construction  of  reservoirs 
for  the  storage  of  debris  from  mines;  the  protection  of 
mines,  towns  or  cities  from  inundation,  by  the  erection  of 
embankments  or  dykes;  the  drainage  of  certain  districts 
of  the  state  by  the  rectification  of  river  channels,  and  the 
levy  of  special  taxes  to  carry  on  a  system  of  public  works, 
are  all  inseparably  conjoined  in  the  body  of  the  act.  The 
extraordinary  powers  conferred  upon  the  district  board  of 
directors  are  to  be  exercised  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  sub- 
jects conjointly;  and  the  money  to  be  raised  by  the  exercise 
of  these  powers  is  to  be  expended  for  all  without  distinc- 
tion as  to  any  particular  ones,  thus  rendering  it  impos- 
sible to  disjoin  the  subjects  embraced  in  the  act  which  are 
not  expressed  in  its  title  so  as  to  adjudge  the  one  void  and 
the  other  valid,  as  might  be  done  under  section  24  of  article 
4  of  the  constitution/'59 

Where  the  provisions  of  a  statute  which  are  not  con- 
nected with  its  subject  are  separable,  they  will  be  declared 
void  and  the  residue  sustained.60     In  states  where  this  con- 

5858  Cal.  G24,  638.  47  Ind.  150;  Shoemaker  v.  Smith, 

59  See  State  v.  Exnicios,   33  La.  37  Ind.  122;  Richards  v.  Richards, 

Ann.  253;  State  v.  Crowley,  33  La.  76  N.  Y.  188;  Ex  parte  Wood,  34 

Ann.  782.  Kan.  645;  Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa. 

MPost,  ch.  IX;  State  v.  Dalon,35  St.  192;  Commonwealth  v.  Martin, 

La.  Ann.  1141;  Cooley's  C.  L  181;  107  Pa.  St.  185;  Stuart  v.  Kinsella, 

People  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  566,  568;  14   Minn.  524;  State   v.  Lancaster 

Succession  of   Irwin,  33  La.   Ann.  Co.,   17  Neb.  87;  Smith    v.   Mayor, 

63;  State  v.  Exnicios,  33  La.  Ann.  34  How.   Pr.   508;    Allegheny  Co. 

253;  Unity  v.    Burrage,  103  U.  S.  Home's  Case,  77  Pa.  St.  77;  Adams 

447,  26  L.  Ed.  405;  State  v.  Young,  v.  Webster,  26  La.  Ann.  142;  State 


I  1  11. 1       01       Ai    l>. 


Btitntional  rostri  tion  applies  only  to  local  and  private  acts, 

the  joinder  of  provisions  of  a  public  or  general  nature1  with 

of  a  local  or  private  nature  will  not  invalidate  the 

former,  though  the  latter  may  be  void  for  duplicity  of  sub- 
n  the  act  or  for  not  being  germane  to  the  title.61 
145  102).  Provisions  in  an  act  not  within  the  subject 
expressed  in  the  title  —  Examples.—  The  title  of  an  act 
defines  its  scope;  it  can  contain  no  valid  provision  beyond 
the  range  of  the  subject  there  stated.6-    It  has  already  been 


aim. 33  La.  Ann.  981;  "William- 
son v.  Keokuk,  41  Iowa,  88:  State 
v.  Hunls.  lit  Neb.  816;  Whited  v. 
I.. -wis.  25  La.  Ann.  568;  People  v. 
Hall,  8  Colo.  485,  9  Pac  34;  Fuqua 
>-.  Mullen,  13  Bush,  467;  Municipal- 
ity No.  ::  v.  Michoud,  6  La.  Ann. 
605;  Ex  parte  Moore,  G2  Ala.  471; 
Mississippi  &  R  River  B.  Co.  v. 
Prince,  10   Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas. 

Ex  parte  Thomason.  1G  Neb. 

Davis  v.State,7Md.  151;  State 
v.  Wardens.  23  La.  Ann.  720;  State 
v.  Silver,  9  Nev.  227;  Gibson  v. 
Belcher,  1  Bush.  145;  Stockle  v. 
SiIsbee,41Mich.616;  People  v. Flem- 
ing. 7  Colo.  2:30,  3  Pac.  70;  Bugher 
v.  Present  t,  23  Fed.  20;  Rader 
v.  Township  of  Union.  39  N.  J.  L. 
509;  Daubman  v.  Smith,  47  N.  J. 
L.    200:  Grubbs   v.   State,  24   Ind. 

Rushing   v.   Sebree,  12   Bush, 

Central  &  G.  R  R.  Co.  v.  Peo- 
5  Colo.  39. 
61  People  v.  Supervisors,  43  N.  Y. 
10;  Richards  v.  Richards,  7G  N.  Y. 

189;  People  v.  McCann,  16  N. 
Am.  Dec.  642;  Williams 
v.  People,  24  N.  Y.  405. 

bate  v.  Silver,  9  Nev.  227;  Peo- 
ple v.  Common  Council,  13  Abb. 
I'r.  'N.  S.  121;  Lowndes  County  v. 
Hunter,  49  Ala.  007;  State  v.  War- 


dens, 23  La.  Ann.  720;  Brieswick 
v.  Mayor,  etc,  51  Ga.  G39,  21  Am. 
Rep.  240;  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  115; 
In  re  Tappen,  36  How.  Pr.  390;  Ex 
parte  Thomason,  10  Neb.  238,  20  N. 
W.  :J12;  Mewberter  v.  Price,  11  Ind. 
199;  People  v.  Gad  way,  61  Mich. 
285,  28  N.  W.  101,  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
578;  Church  v.  Detroit,  64  Mich.  571, 
31  N.  W.  447;  Nester  v.  Busch,  64 
Mich.  657,  31  N.  W.  572;  Losch  v.  St. 
Charles,  65  Mich.  555.  32  N.  W.  816: 
Supervisors  v.  Auditor-General,  G8 
Mich.  G59,  36  N.  W.  794;  Ellis  v. 
Hutchinson,  70  Mich.  154.  38  N.  W. 
14:  Eaton  v.  Walker,  76  Mich.  579,  4 
N.W.638.6L.R.  A.102;  Fidelity  Ins 
Co.  v.  Shenandoah  V.  R.  R.  Co..  86 
Va.  1,  9S.  E.  759;  Thomas  v.  Wabash, 
eta  R  R  Co..  40  Fed.  126;  Touzalin 
v.  Omaha,  25  Neb.  817,  41  N.  W.  79G; 
McCabe  v.  Kenney,  52  Hun,  514; 
Lane  v.  State.  49  N.  J.  L.  673;  Hat- 
field v.  Commonwealth,  120  Pa.  St. 
395,  14  Atl.  151;  Wulftange  v.  Mc- 
Collom,  83  Ky.  3G1;  Norton  Co. 
Com'rs  v.  Snow,  45  Kan.  332,  25 
Pac.  903.  2G  Pac.  CO;  State  v.  Sholl, 
58  Kan.  507,  49  Pac.  668;  People  v. 
Congdon,  77  Mich.  351,  43  N.  W. 
986;  State  v.  Washoe  Co.  Com'rs. 
22  Nev.  399,  41  Pac.  145;  Matter  of 
Greene,  55  A  pp.  Div.  475,  67  N.  Y.  S. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


253 


shown  that  any  provisions  germane  to  the  subject  expressed, 
or  which  are  reasonably  related  or  incidental  thereto,  or 
which  may  aid  or  facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  the  pur- 
pose expressed  in  the  title,  may  be  included  in  the  act  and 
will  be  covered  by  the  title.03  The  supreme  court  of  "Wis- 
consin says:  "When  one  reading  a  bill,  with  the  full  scope 
of  the  title  thereof  in  mind,  comes  upon  provisions  which 
he  could  not  reasonably  have  anticipated  because  of  their 
being  in  no  way  suggested  by  the  title  in  any  reasonable 
view  of  it,  they  are  not  constitutionally  covered  thereby. 
But  in  applying  that  rule,  this  other  rule,  which  has  been 
universally  adopted,  must  be  kept  in  mind :  The  statement 
of  a  subject  includes,  by  reasonable  inference,  all  those 
things  which  will  or  may  facilitate  the  accomplishment 
thereof."64 

A  title  importing  a  prospective  statute  will  not  cover  a 
retrospective  provision.65  An  act  to  prescribe  the  manner 
of  creating  corporations  cannot  constitutionally  embrace 
provisions  amending  existing  charters."6  A  title  importing 
exclusively  a  public  statute  will  not  cover  provisions  of  a 
private  nature  not  mentioned  in  the  title.67  An  act  pur- 
porting by  its  title  to  legalize  and  make  valid  certain  county 
bonds  may  not  authorize  the  issue  of  new  bonds  for  like 
reasons  to  other  persons.68  Provisions  directing  the  manner 
of  executing  a  judgment  may  not  be  embraced  in  an  act 
professing  by  its  title  to  regulate  fees  on  judicial  sales.69 
Under  a  title  providing  for  work  in  the  improvement  of 
certain  named  streets  in  a  city,  no  provisions  can  be  enacted 

291;  Commonwealth  v.  Moorhead,  66  Ayeridge  v.  Town  Com'rs,  60 

7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  513.  Ga.  405:  City  Council  v.  Port  Royal, 

MAnle,  §g  118,  130.  etc.,  74  Ga.  658. 

64  Diana  Shooting  Club  v.  Lame-  67  People  v.  Supervisors,  43  N.  Y. 

reux,  114   Wis.  44,  50,  89  N.  W.  880,  10.     But  see  Neuendorff  v.  Duryea, 

90  Am.  St.  Rep.  833.  69  N.  Y.  557,  25  Am.  Rep.  235. 

«s  Lindsay   v.   U.  S.   Savings    &  68  Board  of  Commissioners  v.  Ba- 

Loan  Ass'n,  120  Ala,  156,  24  So.  171,  ker,  80  Ind.  374. 

42  L.  R.  A.  783;  Thomas  v.  Collins,  «9  Gaskin  v.  Anderson,  55  Barb. 

58  Mich.  64,  24  N.  W.  553.  259. 


iin.i     01    A.0T8. 


for  work  on  others  not  Darned.70    A  title  confined  to  lease- 
hold estates  will  ma  rover  provisions  relating  to  freeholds.71 
So  an  act  whose  title  refers  <>nlv  to  revenue  for  slate  and 
county  purposes  cannot  provide  for  municipal  revenues.78 
It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  an  act  entitled  to 
ite  the  jurisdiction  of  a  class  of  inferior  courts  and 
providing  for  an  appeal  could  properly  regulate  the  juris- 
m   and   practice  of  the  appellate  court   in   the  cases 
;  saled.     It  appears  to  the  writer  to  be  an  extraneous 
subject.73 


n  re  Saokett,  etc.  Streets,  74 
'     Y.  9& 
"  Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  192. 

:-  Ross    v.     Davis,    (J7     Ind.    ?!); 

her   v.    Prescott,    23    Fed.   20; 

wide   v.Lewis,    12   Lea,    180; 

Equitable  Guaranty  &  Trust  Co.  v. 

Donahue.  :J  1'enn.  (Del.)  191,  40  Atl. 

73 Jones   v.  Thompson,  12  Bush, 
Faqua  v.  Mullen,  13  Bush,  467; 
Kuhns   v.    Krammis,   20  Ind.  490, 
overruled    in    Robinson    v.    Skip- 
worth,  23  Ind.  311.   The  title  of  the 
act  in  question  in  this  case  was: 
"The  election  and  qualification  of 
justioes  of  the  peace  and  defining 
their     jurisdiction,     powers     and 
duties  in  civil  cases."  The  act  con- 
tained  a   provision    in    regard   to 
appealed  from  justices' courts 
to   the  circuit  and  common  pleas 
courts,  that  "such  cases  shall  stand 
trial    in  the  court  of  common 
9  or  circuit   courts    win 

I    lias   beeil    filed  ten 

before  the  first  day  of  t!,<- 
t  ben  of,  and  I/'-  there 

•  ■  rules  and  regula- 
ribed    for  trials    I. 
'■s:  and   amendments  of  the 
pleadings    may  be    made  on  such 


terms  as  to  costs  and  continu- 
ances as  the  court  may  order."  In 
Kuhns  v.  Krammis  the  court  said: 
"Appeals  from  justices  of  the 
peace  entirely  remove  the  cat 
appealed  from  the  justices.  They 
are  not  tried  upon  error  but  de 
novo,  and  are  never  returned  to 
the  justices.  The  final  judgment 
regulating  the  rights  of  the  parlies 
is  rendered  in  the  appellate  court. 
Such  being  the  case,  all  legislation 
touching  the  manner  of  rendering 
judgment  in  such  cases  should  be 
in  acts  regulating  proceedings  in 
the  appellate  courts;  and  provis- 
ions in  the  justice's  act  assuming 
to  prescribe  the  practice  in  the 
trial  and  judgment  of  such  causes 
in  the  appellate  courts  is  in  no 
manner  connected  with  the  act 
regulating  the  practice  in  justice's 
court."  "  But,"  the  court  inquires 
in  the  overruling  opinion  in  Robin- 
son v.  Skipworth,  "is  there  not  a 
natural  and  proper  connection  be- 
tween this  matter  and  the  subject 
of  the  act?  It  is  plain  that  to 
constitute  this  connection  the  mat- 
ter need  not  form  any  part  of  the 
subject.  For  it  is  well  said  by  Mr. 
Justice  Perkins  in  delivering  the 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


255 


An  act  which  by  its  title  is  directed  against  the  adultera- 
tion of  milk,  and  professing  to  regulate  the  sale  of  milk, 
does  not  extend  to  the  provision  against  producing  unwhole- 
some milk  by  any  other  process  than  adulteration.74  So, 
where  the  title  of  an  act  referred  only  to  bills  and  promis- 
sory notes,  no  other  contracts  could  be  affected  or  made  the 
subject  of  legislation  in  the  body  of  the  act.75  A  title  of 
legislation  relating  to  the  transportation  of  freight  will  not 
permit  any  provision  relative  to  passenger  transportation.™ 
Xor  is  a  title  providing  for  the  acknowledgment  of  deeds 
and  other  conveyances  of  land  broad  enough  to  include 
provisions  defining  the  consequences  of  a  failure  to  record 
such  instruments.77  Under  the  phrase  "  to  lay  additional 
tracks,"  in  the  title  of  an  act  supplementary  to  the  charter 
of  a  railway  company,  a  new  route  cannot  be  substituted 


opinion  of  this  court  in  the  case  of 
The  Bank  of  the  State  of  Indiana 
v.  The  City  of  New  Albany,  11 
Ind.  189,  that  'as  to  sec.  19,  art,  4 
(of  the  constitution),  referred  to, 
that  "every  act  shall  embrace  but 
one  subject  and  matters  properly 
connected  therewith,  which  sub- 
ject shail  be  expressed  in  the  title." 
The  title  incorporating  the  bank 
is,  "  An  act  incorporating  the  bank 
without  branches."  We  have  al- 
ready seen  that  the  extent  and 
manner  of  taxing  the  capital  stock 
of  the  bank,  when  created,  is  a 
matter  properly  connected  with 
the  subject  of  chartering  the  insti- 
tution, and  it  is  only  tlie  subject, 
and  not  the  matter  properly  con- 
nected therewith,  that  must  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title.''  The  chain 
connecting  the  matter  of  section 
70  (supra)  with  the  subject  of  the 
act  is  unbroken.  We  follow  the 
case  in  all  its  stages,  from  the 
commencement  of   the  action   to 


the  final  judgment  of  the  justice; 
then  follows  the  appeal;  then  the 
proceedings  in  the  appellate  court, 
step  by  step,  to  final  judgment, 
including  costs  in  the  action." 
Here  the  cases  on  which  the  juris- 
diction is  exercised  are  treated  as 
"  matter  properly  connected  there- 
with," even  after  they  have  passed 
beyond  that  jurisdiction.  It  is  not 
the  purpose  of  the  act  to  provide 
for  cases  —  they  are  connected 
with  the  subject  of  the  act  —  the 
justice's  jurisdiction  —  while  they 
are  subjects  of  that  jurisdiction  — 
no  longer.  They  are  incidents; 
and  when  they  have  passed  out  of 
the  sphere  of  the  principal,  they 
are  no  longer  connected  with  it  in 
theory  or  practice. 

74  Shivers  v.  Newton,  45  N.  J.  L. 
469. 

75Mewherter  v.  Price,  11  Ind.  199. 

""Evans  v.  Memphis,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  56  Ala.  246,  28  Am.  Rep.  771. 

«  Carr  v.  Thomas,  18  Fla.  736. 


ii  1 1.1;  OF   ac  is. 

for  that  established  under  the  original  charter.78  An  act 
confined  by  the  title  to  "  the  preservation  of  the  Muskegon 
improvement"  may  include  authority  to  collect  tolls 
and  expend  the  money  for  that  object,  but  a  provision  for 
raising  means  to  pay  and  authorizing  payment  for  the  orig- 
inal construction  of  the  work  is  beyond  the  object  expressed 
in  the  title.79  An  act  "  to  secure  complete  records  in  the 
courts"  does  not  warrant  a  provision  for  obtaining  recovery 
from  a  delinquent  oflicer  who  had  been  already  paid  for 
completing  the  record.80  An  act  "  to  provide  revenue  by 
taxation  of  corporations,  associations  and  limited  partner- 
ships" is  too  restricted  to  embrace  individual  taxation."1 
Provisions  for  attaching  unorganized  territory  to  a  judicial 
district  cannot  be  enacted  under  a  title  to  regulate  the  terms 
of  court  in  it.82 

Where  the  title  indicates  legislation  in  regard  to  specified 
classes,  or  enumerated  objects  or  places,  provisions  in  i  -ard 
to  other  classes,  objects  or  places  will  be  without  the  title 
and  void.83  A  title  relating  to  the  sale  of  liquors  will  not 
cover  provisions  as  to  the  giving  away  of  liquors,  or  the  sale 
of  fruits  put  up  in  alcohol.84  A  title  to  prevent  the  use  of  a 
tiling  will  not  cover  provisions  as  to  selling  or  offering  to 
sell  it.85  "An  act  to  prohibit  the  use  of  billiard  tables,  bowl- 
ine allevs,  dice  or  card  tables"  also  prohibited  the  use  of 
"any  other  device  by  which  men  and  boys  are  allured  to 

■-  West  Phila.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Union  schan,  90  Fed.  80,  32  C.  C.  A.  530; 

11.  R.  Co.,  9  Phila.  495.  Fidelity  Ins.,  Trust  &  Safe  Dep.  Co. 

'■■'  Ryeraon  v.  Utley,  16  Mich.  269.  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  86 

so  Lowndes  County  v.  Hunter,  49  Va.  1,  9  S.  E.  759,  19  Am.  St.   lap. 

Ala.  507.  858;  Fish  v.  Stockdale,   111   Mich. 

mmonwealth  v.  Martin,  107  46,  69  N.  W.  92;  State  v.  Borden, 

Pa.  St.  164  Mo.  221,  64  S.  W.  272;  Bohraer 

1  irte  Wood,  34  Kan.  645,  9  v.  Haffen,  161  N.  Y.  390,  55  N.   EL 

Pac.  76R  1047. 

xon  v.  Poe,  159  Ind.  492,  65  «  Hancock  v.  State,  114  Ga.  439, 

N.  E  518;  State  v.  Hallock,  19  New  40  S.  E.  317. 

884,  12  Pac  832;  Commonwealth  v.  85  State  v.  Great  Western  Coffee 

Darlington,   8    Pa.    Dist    Ct.   237;  &  Tea  Co.,  171  Mo.  034,  71  S.  W. 

Northern  Pac.  Express  Co.  v.  Met-  1011. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


257 


vice  and  idleness."  The  latter  was  held  not  to  be  within 
the  title.86  A  title  was,  "An  act  making  it  a  misdemeanor 
to  issue  trading  stamps  and  other  devices;"  provisions  in 
the  act  as  to  distributing  such  stamps  and  devices  were  held 
void.87  A  title  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  spirituous  liquors  will 
not  cover  provisions  as  to  other  liquors.88  A  title  to  pro- 
hibit the  issuing  of  licenses  to  sell  liquor  within  certain 
territory  was  held  not  to  cover  a  provision  forbidding  the 
sale  of  liquor  in  the  same  territory.89  Where  the  title  is  to 
prohibit  barbering  on  Sunday,  a  provision  making  it  a  mis- 
demeanor for  a  barber  to  keep  open  his  bath  room  on  Sun- 
day is  void.90  An  act  was  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for 
the  assessment  and  collection  of  revenue."  A  provision 
imposing  a  fine  upon  state  and  county  treasurers  for  loaning 
or  using  the  public  funds  was  held  not  within  the  title."1 
A  title  to  provide  for  licenses  to  stevedores  does  not  cover 
a  provision  requiring  them  to  give  bond.92 

§  H6.  Acts  incorporating  or  relating  to  railroads  and 
common  carriers. —  "An  act  to  revise  the  laws  providing 
for  the  incorporation  of  railroad  companies,  and  to  regulate 
the  running  and  management,  and  to  fix  the  duties  and  lia- 
bilities of  all  railroad  and  other  corporations  owning  and 
operating  any  railroad  in  this  state,"  covers  but  one  object. 
It  is  to  bring  together  the  legislation  concerning  the  crea- 
tion and  management  of  railroads.93  An  act  to  incorporate 
a  railroad  or  other  like  company  may,  besides  granting  its 
corporate   powers,  confer  on  townships   or   municipalities 

86  Commonwealth   v.    Ayers,   17  9°  Ragio  v.  State,  86  Tenn.  272,  6 

Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  332.  S.  W.  401. 

8'  State  v.  Walker,  105  La.  492,  29  91In  re  Breene,  14  Colo.  401,  24 

So.  973.  Pac.  3. 

88  Elliott  v.  State,  91  Ga.  694,  17  ^steenken  v.  State,  88  Md.  708, 

S.  E.  1004.  42  Atl.  212. 

w  Hatfield  v.  Commonwealth,  120  93  Toledo,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dunlap, 

Pa.  St,  395,  14  Atl.  151;  Common-  47  Mich.  456,  11  N.  W.  271;  Conti- 

wealth  v.  Frantz,  135  Pa  St.  389, 19  nental  Improvement  Co.  v.  Phelps, 

Atl.  1025;  Commonwealth  v.  Mont-  47  Mich.  299,  11  N.  W.  167. 
ross,  8  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  237. 
17 


l  11  LB    OT    ,\i'i>. 


through  which  its  road  passes,  or  which  otherwise  derive  a 

public  advantage  from  the  enterprise  and  improvement  of 

such  company,  power  to  subscribe  to  the  capital  stock  of,  or 

donations  to,  the  company;  and  it  may  provide  for 

"lis  to  decide  as  to  such  subscriptions  or  donations; 
for  taxation  to  pay  such  subscriptions  or  donations,  if  voted ; 
and  for  the  issue  of  bonds  to  represent  the  same.94  It  may 
also  provide  for  the  personal  liability  of  stockholders  for 
labor.  But  a  provision  in  a  railroad  charter  that  certain 
counties  might  subscribe  to  the  capital  stock  of  the  com- 
pany all  or  any  part  of  any  sums  theretofore  voted  in  aid 
of  a  certain  other  railroad,  was  held  not  within  the  title. !li 
An  act  to  amend  a  railroad  charter  authorized  the  company 
to  obtain  and  any  city  or  village  to  grant  to  the  company 
any  rights,  privileges  and  franchises  it  might  choose  to  do 
and  secured  such  grants  against  revocation,  change,  injury 
or  impairment.  The  authority  was  held  not  within  the  title.97 


H4  Mahomet  v.  Quackenbush,  117 

U.  S.  508,  6  &  G  Rep.  858,291*  Ed. 

Town  of  Abington  v.  Cabeen, 

10G    111.    200,    12   Am.    &    Eng.    R, 

R.  Cas.  581;  Connor  v.  Green  Pond, 

etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  23  S.  C.  427;  Board  of 

Super,  v.  People,  25  111.  181;  Bell- 

ville  Pu  R.  Co.  v.  Gregory,  15  id.  20, 

18  Am.  Dec.  589;  Fireman's  Benefit 

n  v.  Lounsbury,  21  111.  511,  7-1 

Am.  Dec.   115;  People  v.  Loewen- 

thal.  93  111.  191;  City  of  Virden  v. 

Allan.  107  id.  005;  Slack  v.  Jacob,  8 

W.  Va.  640;  Hope  v.  Gainsvii 

J46;   Unity  v.  Burrage,  10 

L  Ed.  405;  San  Antonio 

v.  Mehaffy,  96  U.  S.  312,  24  L.  Ed. 

1  tinz  v.  Weber,  81  111.  238;  Peo- 

7.  Brislin,  80  I1L428;  Hutchin- 

-     i,  153  111.  542,  30  N.  EL  27; 

11  v.  Supervisors,  88  Va.  707, 

lipley  v.  Terre  Haute,  74  Ind. 


96  People  v.  Hamill,  134  111.  666, 
17  N.  E  799,  29  N.  E.  280. 

;,;  Mobile  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R,  R. 
Co.,  124  Ala.  132,  2G  So.  902.  The 
court  says:  "If  it  be  conceded  that 
the  subject  contained  in  the  title 
to  the  amendatory  act  is  the  sub- 
ject of  the  original  act,  which  is 
sought  to  be  amended,  that  is,  the 
incorporation  of  the  New  Orleans, 
Mobile  &  Chattanooga  Railroad  Co., 
even  then  the  matter  expressed  in 
section  5,  conferring  giants  of 
power  upon  incorporated  towns 
and  cities,  could  not  be  referable 
and  cognate  to  the  subject  ex- 
pressed in  the  caption,  so  as  to  re- 
lieve it  of  its  offensiveness  to  the 
constitutional  provisions.  To  the 
legislative  mind,  or  to  the  public, 
upon  reading  the  title  to  the  act 
in  question  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est hint  or  suggestion  to  be  had  of 
an  intention  or  purpose  to  amend, 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  259 

A  railroad  charter  authorized  subscriptions  to  its  stock  by 
counties  and  townships  and  provided  that  "townships  shall 
be  and  they  are  hereby  declared  to  be  bodies  politic  and  cor- 
porate and  vested  with  the  necessary  powers  to  carry  out 
the  provisions  of  this  act."  This  was  held  sufficient  to  in- 
corporate the  townships  and  the  provision  was  held  germane 
to  the  subject  expressed,  because  in  aid  of  the  object  de- 
clared.98 An  act  to  provide  for  the  incorporation  of  com- 
panies to  operate  passenger  railways  may  properly  contain 
authority  to  lease  the  property  and  franchises  of  other  rail- 
road companies."  A  provision  that  no  railway  company 
shall  have  power  to  create  a  mortgage  or  lien  valid  against 
judgments  for  materials  furnished,  or  for  work  done,  or  for 
damages  done  to  persons  or  property  by  operation,  was  held 
germane  to  the  subject  of  the  consolidation  of  railways.1 
An  act  to  provide  for  the  organization  of  street  railways 
contained  a  provision  that  all  companies  theretofore  organ- 
ized to  operate  street  railways  should  have  the  same  powers, 
rights,  protection  and  privileges,  and  should  be  subject  to 
all  the  liabilities  provided  for  companies  organized  under 
the  act.2  The  court  says:  "It  is  germane  and  appropriate 
to  the  subject-matter  of  the  act,  and  to  enact  under  such  a 
title  that  all  companies  of  a  like  nature  should  have  the 
same  privileges  is  fairly  within  the  general  object  described 
in  the  title."3  Under  a  title  to  extend  a  certain  railway,  a 
provision  authorizing  the  company  to  charge  not  exceeding 
four  cents  per  mile  was  held  germane  and  valid.4  The  title, 
"  An  act  requiring  railroad  companies  to  pay  for  damages 
to  stock,"  was  held  sufficient  to  cover  provisions  as  to  fenc- 

alter    or    change    the    chartered  1  Frasier  v.  Railway  Co.,  88  Term, 

powers  of  the  cities  and  villages  138,  12  S.  W.  537. 

along  the  line  or  at  the  termini  of  2  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St. 

the  railroad  of  the  company  incor-  Ry.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  368,  22  S.  C.  Rep. 

porated  by  the  act."  410,  46  L.  Ed.  592. 

""Floyd  v.  Perrin,  30  S.  C.  1,  8  S.  3  Id.,  p.  393. 

E.  14,  2  '.j.  x  .  A.  242.  4  Parker  v.  Elmira,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

*  c jukerton     /.    Penn    Traction  165  N.  Y.  274,  59  N.  E.  81. 
lo.,  193  Pa.  SI.  229,  44  Atl.  289. 


TITLE   OF    acts. 

ing  tra<  b  '  "  An  act  to  compel  railroad  companies  to  fence 
tlicir  roads  by  and  through  lands  inclosed  with  a  lawful 
fence,"  covers  a  provision  that,  if  the  company  fails  to  com- 
ply, the  owner  may  build  the  fence  and  collect  the  cost,  with 
ail  attorney's  fee.8  Acts  to  regulate  railroads  and  common 
carriers  may  contain  all  suitable  provisions  for  making  the 
ations  effective.7  In  an  act  to  regulate  the  sale  of 
tickets,  rates  of  fare,  and  the  taxes  and  licenses  to  be  paid 
by  street  railway  companies,  a  provision  forbidding  pas- 
sengers to  get  on  or  otf  the  front  platform,  and  requiring 
cars  to  be  so  equipped  as  to  prevent  the  practice,  was 
held  foreign  to  the  title.8  In  an  act  to  regulate  the  charges 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  freight  by  rail- 
roads, a  provision  imposing  a  penalty  for  evading  the  pay- 
ment of  fare  is  germane.9 

An  act  to  provide  for  the  organization  of  a  railroad  termi- 
nal corporation  provided  that  railroad  companies  contract- 
ing with  it  might  guarantee  its  bonds  and  contracts  and 
also  subscribe  for,  hold  and  dispose  of  its  stock  and  bonds. 
The  provision  was  held  valid.10  A  Michigan  act  was  en- 
titled "An  act  to  authorize  the  incorporation  of  companies 
for  the  construction  of  union  railroad  stations  and  depots, 
with  the  necessary  connecting  tracks  and  the  management 
of  same."  The  act  authorized  such  companies  to  lay  tracks 
and  do  a  suburban  passenger  business.  The  provision  was 
held  to  be  within  the  title.11 

5  Snook  v.  Clark,  20  Mont  230,  50  10  Ryan  v.  Terminal  Co.,  102  Tenn. 

7ia  111,  50  S.  W.  744,  45  L.  R.  A.  303. 

'Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Harrel-  ll  Fort  St.    Union   Depot   Co.  v. 

son,  44  Kan.  253,  24  Pac.  465.  Morton,  83  Mich.  265,  47  N.  W.  228. 

7  State  v.  Jacksonville  Terminal  The  following  is  all  that  is  said  on 

F!a.  363,  27  So.  221;  State  v.  the   point:  "And  the  building  of 

Pernheim,  19   Mont.  512.   49  Pac,  these  tracks  in   connection   with 

..  Whitaker,  160  Mo.  59,  the    depot,   and    the    running    of 

trains  upon  them,  are  all  a  part  of 

'  Wetzman  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  the  same   general   object,  as  the 

131  Mo  612,  83  8.  W.  181.  construction  of  the  depots  and  sta- 

• .  Snn  Joaquin,  109  Cal.  tion  houses  of  the  company,  to  wit, 

I  Pac.  446.  the  increasing  the  facilities  and 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  261 

§  147.  Acts  creating,  regulating  or  otherwise  relating 
to  corporations  in  general.— Any  definite  subject  is  gen- 
erally capable  of  almost  infinite  arbitrary  division;  many 
particular  or  subordinate  subjects  may  be  included  in  one 
general  subject,12  and  each  of  these  particular  or  subordinate 
subjects  may  be  selected  for  the  subject  of  the  bill,  and  may 
itself  be  divisible  and  may  embrace  other  particular  or  sub- 
ordinate subjects.  Acts  to  create  corporations  contain  gen- 
eral subjects  capable  of  much  division ;  they  are  not  confined 
to  the  mere  creation  of  a  corporate  entity.  Such  an  act 
defines  the  powers  of  the  corporate  body  and  regulates  their 
exercise,  and  may  include  everything  necessary  to  insure 
the  existence  of  the  company,  to  attain  the  objects  of  its 
creation  and  to  carry  on  the  business  of  the  company.13  An 
act  to  prescribe  the  manner  of  organizing  corporations,  pub- 
lic or  private,  is  prospective,  and  provides  the  mode  of  cre- 
ating new  corporations.  In  such  an  act  provision  to  modify 
the  charter  of  an  existing  corporation  is  a  new  subject,  not 
germane  to  the  title.14  An  act  so  entitled  will  operate  to 
govern  the  incorporation  of  all  subsequent  companies;  it  is 
not  multifarious  on  that  account,  but  an  act  which  in*  terms 
incorporates  several  companies  is  so.15  A  charter  to  create 
an  institution  for  the  education  of  young  men  presents  a 
subject  which  embraces  everything  which  is  designed  to  fa- 
cilitate that  object;  everything  intended  and  adapted  to 
promote  the  well-being  of  the  institution  or  its  students.16 
An  act  to  establish  a  house  of  refuge  for  the  correction  and 
reformation  of  juvenile  offenders  may  include  an  appropria- 
tion, not  only  of  money,  but  land  with  directions  for  its 

comforts  of  travel  and  transporta-  ers,  60  Ga.  405;  City  Council  v.  Port 

tion   of  passengers    and   freight."  Royal,  74  Ga.  658.  See  State  v.  CI in- 

p.  271.  ton,  27  La.  Ann.  40. 

12  People  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  553,  i&King  v.  Banks,  61  Ga.  20;  Ex 

562.  parte  Conner,  51  id.  571. 

is  State  v.  Wirt  Co.  Ct.,  37  W.  Va.  w  O'Leary  v.  County  of  Cook,  28 

808,  17  S.  E.  379.  111.  534. 

14  Ayeridge  v.  Town  Commission- 


i  1 1 1  i:   OF   ACTS. 

An  a.t  incorporating  a  bank  may  provide  that  all 
parties  liable  on  any  bill  negotiated  at  the  bank  may  be 
sued  in  one  aotion.18  An  art  for  the  benefit  of  a  turnpike 
company  may  authorize  it  to  borrow  money  and  to  execute 
mortgages  toseoure  its  payment;  to  sell  the  road,  right  of 
way,  etc.,  applying  the  proceeds  to  the  payment  of  its  debts; 
may  authorize  a  judicial  sale  at  the  instance  of  creditors, 
giving  the  purchaser  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  company.19 
An  act  to  establish  state  depositories  and  prescribe  their 
duties  and  liabilities  will  cover  provisions  requiring  a  bond, 
and  regulating  the  enforcement  of  it  in  case  of  default.2" 
An  act  "to  authorize  the  Utica  Water-Works  Company  to 
increase  its  capital  stock,  and  to  contract  with  the  common 
council  of  a  city  named  for  a  supply  of  witer  in  that  city 
for  the  extinguishment  of  fires,"  was  held  to  embrace  but 
one  subject,  namely,  the  giving  of  authority  to  two  corpo- 
rate bodies  therein  named  to  enter  into  a  contract  for  tho 
purpose  therein  specified.  The  power  to  increase  the  cap- 
ital of  the  company  was  given  simply  to  enable  it  to  raise 
such  sums  of  money  as  might  be  necessary  for  a  perform- 
ance of  its  contract;  it  was  a  mere  incident  to  the  main  ob- 
ject.21 Provision  for  the  individual  liability  of  stockhold- 
or  making  directors  and  officers  liable  for  the  debts  of 
the  corporation,  for  failure  to  file  reports,  or  for  making  a 
false  report  or  certificate,23  are  germane  to  the  subject  of 
creating  corporations.  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  organi- 
zation and  government  of  state  banks,"  may  prohibit  the 

i:M<;Caslin  v.  State.  44  Ind.  155;  2l  Utica     Water-works     Co.     v. 

Klein  v.  Kinkead,  16  Nev.  194.  Utica,  31   Hun,  426;    O'Meara  v. 

18  Davis  v.  Bank  of  Fulton,  -'A  Ga.  Commissioners,  3  T.  &  C.  '.'  :ii. 

"Ripley  v.  Evans,  87  Mich.  217, 

;    Louisville,  etc.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  2  4!)  X.  YV.  004. 

Met  [Ky.)  165.  '-':!  Ludington  v.  Heilman,  9  Colo. 

y  v.  Bank  of  Rome,  66  Ga  App.    548,   49  Pac.   377;    Tabor  v. 

Bee  Wardle  v.  Townsend,  75  Commercial   Nat.   Bank,   62    Fed. 

Mich,  385,  42  N.  W.  950,  4  L.  R.  A.  383,  10  C.  C.  A.  429,  27  U.  S.  App. 

515.  111. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS.  263 

business  of  banking  except  by  corporations  organized  under 
the  act.24 

Acts  of  incorporation  may  thus  contain  provisions  affect- 
ing the  rights,  powers  and  duties  of  other  persons  and  cor- 
porations. An  act  to  incorporate  a  board  of  underwriters 
may  impose  a  tax  on  the  premiums  of  both  members  and 
non-members.25  An  act  to  incorporate  a  navigation  com- 
pany may  authorize  other  companies  to  subscribe  for  its 
stock.26  An  act  for  the  incorporation  of  manufacturing  cor- 
porations may  not  include  corporations  to  do  a  mercantile 
business.27  An  act  regulating  the  liability  of  railroads  and 
other  corporations,  known  as  the  employers'  liability  act, 
abolished  the  defense  of  fellow-servant  and  prohibited  con- 
tracts releasing  the  company  in  advance  from  liability  for 
injuries,  and  these  were  held  germane  to  the  title.28  An  act 
relating  to  life  and  casualty  insurance  may  provide  that 
money  and  benefits  due  from  such  companies  shall  be  ex- 
empt from  garnishment  and  execution.29  An  act  requiring 
certain  insurance  companies  to  file  annual  reports  writh  the 
auditor  of  state  does  not  cover  a  provision  authorizing  the 
auditor  to  make  a  detailed  examination  into  the  business 
and  affairs  of  such  companies,  whenever  he  deems  it  for  the 
interest  of  the  policy-holders  to  do  so.30  An  act  concerning 
the  judicial  sale  of  the  property  and  franchises  of  corpora- 
tions may  provide  that  the  purchaser  at  such  sale,  and  his 
associates,  shall  constitute  a  corporation  with  all  the  powers 
and  privileges  of  the  old  corporation.31     An  act  concerning 

24  State  v.  Woodmanse,  1  N.  D.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  152  Ind. 
246,  46  N.  W.  970,  11  L.  R.  A.  420.  1,  49  N.  E.  582,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  301. 

25  New  York  Board  of  Fire  Under-  2U  Burton  v.  Snyder,  22  Colo.  173, 
writers  v.  Whipple,  2  App.  Div.  361,  43  Pac.  1004. 

37  N.  Y.  S.  712.  80  state  v.  Commercial  Ins.  Co., 

26  State  v.  Wirt  Co.  Ct.,  37  W.  Va.     158  Ind.  080,  64  N.  E.  466. 

808,  17  S.  E.  379.  31  Brinkerhoff    v.    Newark,    etc. 

27  Eaton  v.  Walker,  76  Mich.  579,  Traction  Co.,  66  N.  J.  L.  478,  49 
43  N.  W.  638,  6  L.  R.  A.  102.  Atl.  812. 

28  Pittsburgh,  Cinn.,  Chi.   &  St. 


TITLE   OF    Ac  is. 

building  and  loan  associations  may  apply  to  foreign  com- 
panic-.  "An  a*  t  to  prohibit  extortion  and  discrimination 
in  the  transmission  of  telegraph  dispatches,"  provided  that 
telegraph  companies  should  be  liable  for  the  non-delivery 

of  ami  mistakes  in  messages,  and  for  all  damages  resulting 
from  failure  to  perform  any  duty  required  by  law,  and 
should  not  be  exempt  from  such  liability  by  reason  of  any- 
thing contained  in  its  printed  blank's.  These  provisions 
were  held  to  be  germane. :t3  An  act  to  provide  for  extend- 
ing the  term  of  corporations,  provided  that  any  corporation 
might  amend  its  articles  so  as  to  put  them  in  any  form 
which  they  might  have  had  originally;  held  not  within  the 
title.1"  "When  the  title  purports  to  relate  to  newhj-incorpo- 
companies,  provisions  relating  to  prior  companies  are 
void.85  An  act  to  revise  the  charter  of  a  company  may 
legalize  acts  previously  done,156  but  not  those  done  under  a 
prior  void  charter.37  An  act  to  provide  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  a  certain  purpose  may  create  a  corporation  for  the 
purpose  though  not  mentioned  in  the  title.38  An  act  to 
provide  for  the  regulation  and  incorporation  of  insurance 
companies  may  not  regulate  the  business  of  insurance  by 
individuals.39  An  act  to  incorporate  an  educational  body 
may  not  include  the  repeal  of  a  charter  of  a  similar  corpo- 
ration.4" The  title,  "An  act  in  relation  to  gas  companies," 
was  held  sullicient  to  cover  provisions  permitting  gas  com- 
panies doing  business  in  the  same  city,  town  or  village  to 
consolidate  or  merge  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  act.41 

3- Clarke  v.  Darr,  156  Ind.  692,  60  37  Snell  v.  Chicago,  133  111.  413,  24 

N.  E  N.  E.  5:52,  8  L  R.  A.  858. 

33  Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    v.  38  Astor   v.  Arcade  Ry.  Co.,  113 

Lowery,  32  Neb.  732,  49  N.  W.  707.  N.  Y.  93,  20  N.  E.  594,  2  L.  R.  A. 

3'Palin<-r  v.  Zumbrota,  72  Minn.  789. 

75  X.  W.  :"'Sehenck   v.  State,  60  N.  J.  L. 

v.   The   Schultz   Co.,  83  381,  37  Atl.  724. 

Md  58,   *t  Atl.  243.  *"  Bryan  v.  Board  of  Education, 

I  v.  Pe  pies'  Perpetual  L.  90  Ky.  322,  13  S.  W.  276. 

&  a  A  --■/,.  95  Va  680,  29  S.  E,  710,  <"  People  v.  Peoples'  Gas  Light  & 

41  L.  EL  A.  589.  C.  Co.,  205  11L  482,  68  N.  E.  950. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  265 

"An  act  to  incorporate  the  Bloomingdale  Grove  Park  As- 
sociation" authorized  the  establishment  of  a  fish  and  game 
preserve  of  thirty  thousand  acres  in  a  particular  county  for 
the  exclusive  use  of  members  and  forbade  trespassing  or 
poaching  under  severe'  penalties.  The  title  was  held  mis- 
leading and  insufficient  because  it  did  not  specify  the  county 
where  the  park  was  to  be  located  and  because  the  word 
"  park,"  in  the  American  sense,  means  ground  set  apart  for 
public  use  for  recreation  and  pleasure.42 

§  148.  Acts  to  create  municipal  corporations  or  to  re- 
vise, consolidate  or  amend  their  charters. —  An  act  to 
incorporate  a  city  may  contain  provisions  relating  to  the 
various  subjects  upon  which  municipal  legislation  may  be 
required  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace,  the  promotion  of 
its  growth  and  prosperity,  and  for  the  raising  of  revenue 
for  its  government.43  It  may  confer  the  necessary  legisla- 
tive, taxing,  judicial  and  police  powers  —  the  grant  of  them 
is  one  subject.44  The  whole  thing,  the  creation  of  the  mu- 
nicipality, is  that  subject;  the  parts  of  it  are  separate  sub- 
jects, but  parts  of  one  general  subject.45  So  an  act  to  consoli- 
date a  city  and  provide  for  its  government  embraces  but  one 
subject.  It  may  properly  embrace  the  details  for  uniting 
different  municipalities,  providing  for  the  payment  of  their 
debts,  the  government  of  the  city,  and  all  the  minutia  to  which 
the  £eneral  administration  of  its  affairs  would  lead.46  The 
revision  of  an  act  which  has  incorporated  a  municipality 
announces  but  one  subject.  It  may  treat  of  the  essential 
parts  of  the  whole  as  well  as  may  the  original  creative  en- 
actment.47    An  act  to  revise  and  consolidate  the  several  acts 

<-'  Commonwealth  v.  Hazen,  207  372;  People  v.  Pond,  67  id.  98,  34 

Pa.  St.  52,  reversing  S.  C,  20  Pa.  N.  W.  647;  People  v.  Hurst,  41  Mich. 

Supr.  Ct.  487.  32a 

«  Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  IT.  S.  «  Id. 
278,  26  L.  Ed.  1090;  City  of  Jack-  «  Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.S. 
sonville   v.   Basnett,   20  Fla.   525;  278,  26  L.  Ed.  1090;  City  of  Coving- 
People  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  560.  ton  v.  Voskotter,  80  Ky.  219;  State 

«  Harris  v.  People,  59  N.  Y,  599;  v. Haskell  Co.,  40 Kan.  65, 19 Pac.  362. 

Attorney-General  v.Amos,  60  Mich.  47  Harris  v.  People,  59  N.  Y.  602. 


I       01      A. 

in  relation  to  the  charter  of  a  oit^  embraces  but  one  sub- 
ject  The  charter  consists  of  the  creative  act  and  all  acts 
in  force  relating  to  the  corporation.  The  word  "consolidate  " 
Bes  that  all  the  acts  are  to  be  brought  into  and  re- 
enacted  in  one  act.  The  subject  is  broad  enough  to  embrace 
the  details  of  the  city  government.48  An  act  to  make  fur- 
ther provision  for  the  government  of  a  city  or  county  is 
one  to  provide  ways  and  means  for  its  support,  a  revenue 
act,  not  one  which  can  contain  any  provision  to  reorganize  or 
change  the  government  or  its  organic  law.49 

When  the  title  of  an  act  indicates  the  general  purpose  to 
incorporate  a  municipal  corporation,  or  to  revise,  consoli- 
date or  amend  the  charter  of  such  a  corporation,  the  follow- 
in-  provisions  have  been  held  to  be  germane  and  within 
the  title:  authority  to  issue  bonds  in  aid  of  a  railroad;"" 
provisions  for  adjusting  the  property  rights  and  interests 
between  the  municipality  created  and  the  political  division 
from  which  it  was  cut  off;51  provision  for  a  board  of  police 
commissioners,  named  by  the  governor  and  self-perpetuat- 
ing;52 conferring  the  power  of  eminent  domain  for  opening 
streets;53  requiring  street  railways  to  pave  a  part  of  the 
bs  which  they  occupy;54  giving  damages  for  re-grading 
streets :  M  that  no  one  should  acquire  title  to  any  street,  lane, 
alley  or  public  square  by  adverse  possession;58  authorizing 
the  issue  of  bonds  to  construct  a  combination  railroad  and 

«  People  v.  Briggs,  50  N.  Y.  500,  so  Board  of  Trustees  v.  Maysville, 

97  Ky.  145,  30  S.  W.  1. 

-kin  v.  Meek,  42  N.  Y.  180;  51  People  v.  Carson,  10  Misc.  237, 

People  v.  O'Brien,  38  id.  103.     This  30  N.  Y.  S.  817. 

cides  that  there  cannot  r>-  Americus    v.    Perry,   114    Ga. 

•in. led  in  a  revenue  bill  en-  871,  40  S.  E.  1004, 

titled   to  give  authority   to    raiso  '■•'■'•  State  v.  North  Plainfield,  63  N. 

by  tax  for  the  use  of  a  city  J.  L.  61,  42  All.  vu:,. 

corporation,  and  regulating  its  die-  '''Atlanta  v.  Gate  City  St,  Ry. 

incut,  a  provision  amending  Co.,  SO  Ga.  276,  4  S.  E.  269. 

arter  in  relation  to  the  ofli-  ''"'Sli^li  v.  Grand  Rapids,  84  Micb. 

rni   of  councilmen  and  the  497,  47  N.  W.  1093. 

if  their  election.     See  Buber  '''Crawford    v.   Ross,   120  Mich. 

.  49  N.  Y.  I  6  '  I.  ^'i  X.  W. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  207 

wagon  bridge  across  an  abutting  river;57  providing  that  a 
court  may  revoke  license  of  one  convicted  of  violating  an 
ordinance;58  providing  that  the  county  treasurer  shall  pay 
over  to  the  city  treasurer  the  city  taxes  collected  by  him, 
with  all  interest  and  penalties  and  with  its  proportion  of 
the  interest  paid  by  banks  on  moneys  deposited  by  the 
county  treasurer.59 

On  the  other  hand,  under  similar  titles,  the  following- 
provisions  were  held  not  germane  and  void :  That  all  funds 
arising  under  the  general  revenue  laws  of  the  state  from 
liquor  licenses  issued  to  parties  within  the  city  should  be 
paid  over  to  the  city  treasurer  for  use  of  the  public  schools; 60 
authority  to  make  repairs  on  a  toll  road  partly  within  the 
city  and  collect  the  cost  by  suit  from  the  company ; 61  author- 
ity to  build  a  county  court-house  and  to  issue  bonds  there- 
for;62 that  the  city  should  afford  fire  and  police  protection 
to  the  state  property  within  its  limits  and  care  for  the 
streets  and  walks  on  which  state  property  abuts  and  that  the 
expense  should  be  paid  out  of  the  state  treasury;63  creating 
a  police  district,  including  the  city  and  extending  one  and 
one-half  miles  beyond  its  limits; 64  providing  for  the  election 
of  a  county  assessor.65 

Such  a  title  will  cover  provisions  establishing  a  munici- 
pal court,66  but  will  not  justify  the  creation  of  a  court  for 
other  than  city  purposes,'57  nor  a  provision  forbidding  the 
prosecution  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  under  a  state  law 

57  South  St.  Paul  v.  Lamprecht  ^Thompson  v.  Luverne,  128  Ala. 

Bros.  Co.,  88  Fed.  449,  31  C.  C.  A.  567,  29  So.  326. 

585.  63  Lansing  v.  Board  of  State  Au- 

58 State   v.    Anderson,   63    Minn,  ditors,  111  Mich.  327,  69  N.  W.  723. 

208,  65  N.  W.  265.  "Blair  v.  State,  90  Ga.  326,  17  S. 

59  Crookston  v.  County  Com'rs,  79  E.  96,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  206. 

Minn.  283,  82  N.  W.  586,  79  Am.  St.  b5  Haverly  v.  State,  63  Neb.  83, 88 

Rep.  453.  N.  W.  171 ;  State  v.  Haverly,  63  Neb. 

«o  Woolf  v.  Taylor,  98  Ala.  254, 13  87,  88  N.  W.  172. 

So.  688.  6(i  Clem  mensen  v.  Petersen,  35  Ore. 

61  Mt.  Joy  v.  Turnpike  Co.,  182  Pa.  47,  56  Pac.  1015. 

St,  581,  38  Atl.  411.  H7Ex  parte  Flagg,  38  Tex.  Crinv 

Rep.  573,  44  S.  W.  294. 


'II  N  I      01      A. 

person  who  1ms  already  been  arraigned  before  the 
mayor  under  an  ordinance  for  the  same  offense;68  nor  a  pro- 

■l  that  the  mayor  and,  in  case  of  his  disqualification, 
three  members  of  the  council,  shall  constitute  a  court  for 
the  trial  of  certain  offenses  within  the  city.69 

A  general  act  for  the  incorporation  of  municipalities  may 
make  provision  for  the  annexation  of  territory  thereto.70 
It  has  been  held  in  Kentucky  that,  under  a  title  to  amend 
the  charter  of  a  town,  its  limits  may  be  extended,71  but  the 
contrary  has  been  held  in  Colorado.72  An  act  to  incorpo- 
rate a  town  may  not  change  the  county  relations  of  its  ter- 

\  though  its  territory  is  taken  partly  from  each  of  two 
counties.78  Where  territory  which  had  been  constituted  a 
county  under  a  void  act  was  created  a  township,  under  a 
title  to  create  the  township  of  Garfield,  it  was  held  that  a 
provision  attaching  it  to  Finney  county  was  valid.74 

Where  the  title  is  to  re-incorporate  a  municipality  or  to 
amend  its  charter,  it  is  held  sufficient  to  cover  provisions 

izing  prior  acts  or  proceedings.75  "An  act  to  alter  and 
amend  the  several  acts  incorporating  the  town  of  S.,and  to 
confer  upon  said  town  of  S.  a  municipal  government,"  was 
held  broad  enough  to  cover  provisions  changing  the  town 
to  a  city,  the  word  "municipal  "  being  ambiguous  and  suffi- 
cient to  cover  either  town  or  city  government.76  "An  act 
to  amend  the  charter  of  the  city  of  St.  Paul  in  relation  to 
the  duties  and  powers  of  the  board  of  public  works  of  said 

68  Bell  v.  State,  115  Ala.  87,22  So.        n  State  v.  Lewwelling,  51  Kan. 

562,  33  Pac,  425. 
w  Brown  v.  State,  79  Ga.  324, 4  So.        "'People  v.  Sutpliin,  160  N.   Y. 

168,  5!)  N.  E.  770;  Nottage  v.  Port- 

70  In  re  Lackawana  Tp.,  ICO  Pa.     land,  85  Ore.  539.  58  Pac.  883,  76 

All.  927.  Am.  St.  Rep.  513.     Compare  Mat- 

71  Parkland  v.  Gaines,  88  Ky.  562,     ter  of  City  of  Rochester,  77  App. 
11  S.  W.  '1 19.  Div.  28,  79  N.  Y.  S.  236;  Percival  v. 

"-Denver  v.  Coulehan,  20  Colo.  Cowychee,    etc.    Dist,    15    Wash. 

471.  89  Pac.  425,  27  L.  R  A.  751.  4-0,  46  Pac.  1035. 

on  v.  Ir-.n  Gate  L.  &  I.  Co.,        7,;  Sessions  v.  State,  115  Ga.  18,41 

a  E.  TOT.  S.  E.  259. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


269- 


city  "  did  not  name  the  board  of  public  works  in  the  body 
of  the  act,  but  related  to  local  improvements  over  which 
that  board  had  control  and  supervision.  The  act  was  held 
valid.77  An  act  to  provide  for  the  creation  of  the  city  of 
P.,  now  known  as  the  provincial  municipality  of  P.,  pro- 
vided that  the  city  should  have  control  of  wharves,  and 
should  appoint  a  harbor  commissioner,  with  certain  duties, 
and  a  harbor-master,  who  should  perform  all  the  duties 
then  performed  by  the  harbor-master  under  the  statutes  of 
the  state.  The  existing  harbor-master  was  thus  displaced 
and  the  laws  relating  to  his  office  materially  changed.  It 
was  held  that  the  title  was  misleading  and  the  provisions 
in  question  were  void.78  "  An  act  to  incorporate  the  city  of 
Lakeside,  to  provide  for  its  future  annexation  to  the  city  of 
Duluth  and  to  the  independent  school  district  of  Duluth," 
in  its  first  eleven  chapters  incorporated  certain  territory  as 
the  city  of  L.,  and  provided  for  its  government,  and  in 
chapter  12  provided  that  on  a  certain  date,  a  year  and  a 
half  later,  the  city  should  become  a  part  of  the  city  of  Du- 
luth. The  act  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject  and  to 
be  valid.79 

77  Ek  v.  St.  Paul  Permanent  Loan  the  provisional  municipality  of  Pen- 
Co.,  84  Minn.  245,  87  N.  W.  844.  sacola,  which  in  no  way  controlled 

78  State  v.Burns,  38  Fla.  367,  21  the  appointment  of  the  harbor-mas- 
So.  290;   State  v.  Slocum,  38  Fla.  ter."    p.  390. 

407,  21  So.  1028.  In  the  former  case  79  State  v.  La  Vaque,  47  Minn, 
the  court  says  that  in  an  act  to  ere-  106,  49  N.  W.  525.  The  court  says: 
ate  an  original  municipality  such  "Taking  the  entire  act  together,  it 
a  provision  would  have  been  proper,  is.  in  substance,  only  an  act  provid- 
but  that  the  words  "now  known,"  ing  for  the  government  of  the  ter- 
ete, are  restrictive  and  indicate  an  ritory  described  in  it;  providing 
intent  to  deal  with  the  existing  mu-  for  its  government  temporarily 
nicipality  and  were  misleading,  under  the  provision  of  an  inde- 
"  The  title,"  says  the  court,  "  with  pendent  charter,  and  for  its  gov- 
the  clause  in  it  is  calculated  to  di-  ernment  after  the  period  specified, 
vert  attention  from  any  proposition  under  the  provisions  of  the  char- 
to  subject  the  harbor-master  of  the  ter  of  Duluth,  with  two  or  three 
port  of  Pensacola  to  municipal  con-  unimportant  exceptions  —  excep- 
trol,  in  that  it  directed  attention  to  tions  that  might  have  been  made 
the  creation  of  a  city,  then  known  as  had  the  territory  been  originally 


'ii  in:   OF    A.OT8. 

Iii  an  art   to  provide  for  the  organization,  government 

and  powers  of  cities  of  the  second  class,  a  provision  exempt- 
icb  cities  from  Liability  for  the  neglect  of  street  rail- 
keep  their  tracks  in  repair  was  held  not  germane 
ami  void.80     So  of  a  provision  Limiting  the  time  in  which  to 
bring  ainst  the  city.81     An  act  to  revise  and  amend 

neral  law  in  relation  to  cities,  towns  and  villages  con- 
d  a  provision  for  the  creation  <>!'  park  districts,  which 
might  extend  beyond  the  municipal  limits,  and  which  were 
■  managed   and   controlled  by  park  boards.     The  pro- 
D    was    held    not    within   the   title.      The   court  says: 
'•While  the  subject  of  public  parks  is  intimately  connected 
that  of  municipal  government,  and   might  properly 
form    part   of  a  statute  regulating  city,  town  and  village 
.  yet  we  are  of  opinion   that  the  creation  of  such 
park   corporations,  in  taxing  districts  embracing  territory 
b  yond   the    limits  of  any  city,  town  or  village,  invested 
with  some  of  the  most  important  powers  of  the  county  and 
city  government,  as  contemplated    by  the  sections  under 
w,  is  a  subject  which   cannot  fairly  be  construed  as 
embraced  within  the  title,  'Of  cities,  towns  and  villages.'"8-' 
149.  Acts  relating  to  light,  water,  railroads,  etc.,  in 
municipalities. —  A  title  to  authorize  cities  to  erect  and 
operate  a  lighting  plant  is  suflicient  to  cover  provision  for 
commercial  lightin  _r.  :    "An  act  to  provide  for  the  establish- 

incluled  within  the  corporate  lim-  for  such  government  for  a  specified 

Duluth.    Providing  local  gov-  time,  and  different  provisions  for 

eminent  for  that  territory  is  the  such  government  alter  that  time, 

il  subject,  and  the  only  gen-  are  equally  appropriate  to  the  gen- 

eral   -ubject  of  the  act.    There  are  era  I  subject." 

minor  subjects,  matters  of  80Weigel   v.    Hastings,    29    Neb. 

in  the  act,  as  there  mustal-  379,  45  N.  W.  G94. 

be  in  similar  acl  s;  but,  where  81  Foxworthy  v.  Hastings,  23  Neb. 

minor  subjects  are  germane  772,  37  N.  W.  057. 

to  the   general   subject,  they  are  8- State  v.  County  Court,  102  Mo. 

]. roper  to  be  included  in  the  act.  581,  15  S.  W.  79. 

general  subject  is  pro-  83Belding  Land  &  Imp.  Co.  v. 

for  the  local  government  of  Belding,  128  Mich.  79,  87  N.  W.  113. 
a    parti  :ulax   territory,   provisions 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  271 

ment  of  an  electric-light  plant  in  H,"  may  authorize  the 
municipality  to  do  it.84  A  title  authorizing  cities  to  obtain 
water  by  purchasing  or  constructing  works  was  held  insuffi- 
cient to  cover  a  provision  for  condemnation.85  "An  act  pro- 
viding for  the  sale  of  railroad  and  other  franchises  in  mu- 
nicipalities and  relating  to  granting  franchises"  may  pro- 
vide for  the  granting  of  franchises  by  county  boards  as  well 
as  by  cities  and  towns.86  'An  act  to  establish  and  maintain 
a  water  department  in  and  for  the  city  of  Syracuse"  may 
embrace  all  provisions  necessary  for  procuring  a  water  sup- 

ply-87 

§  150.  Acts  relating  to  municipal  streets,  improve- 
ments, buildings,  lands,  etc. —  An  act  authorizing  cities 
and  towns  to  construct  internal  improvements  and  issue 
bonds  therefor  was  held  to  embrace  provisions  authorizing 
the  purchase  of  works  previously  constructed.88  "An  act 
in  relation  to  local  improvements  in  the  town  of  Flatbush," 
covers  a  provision  authorizing  the  construction  of  an  outlet 
sewer  through  an  adjoining  town  to  tide  water,  which  was 
necessary  to  make  the  local  sewers  effective.89  "An  act  to 
provide  for  a  board  of  assessors  in  cities  of  the  third  class," 
may  provide  that  such  board  shall  make  both  the  assess- 
ment for  general  taxes  and  the  assessments  of  damages  and 
benefits  in  case  of  local  improvements.90  An  act  to  regu- 
late the  condemnation  of  property  for  various  municipal  pur- 
poses specified  in  the  title,  among  which  were  "  water  mains," 
will  not  cover  provisions  authorizing  condemnation  for  reser- 
voirs and  stand-pipes.91     Where  the  title  was  to  provide  for 

8*Mealey  v.  Hagerstown,  92  Md.  89Van  Brunt  v.  Flatbush,  128  N. 

741,  48  Atl.  746.  Y.  50,  27  N.  E.  973.  To  same  effect, 

8*  Enterprise  v.  Smith,  62  Kan.  Newark  v.  Orange,  55  N.  J.  L.  514, 

815,  62  Pac.  324.  26  Atl.  799. 

8e  Thompson  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs,  90In  re  Sewer  Assessment   for 

111  Cal.  553,  44  Pac.  230.  Passaic,  54  N.  J.  L.  156,  23  Atl.  517. 

87  Sweet  v.  Syracuse,  129  N.  Y.  B1  Adams  v.  San   Angelo  Water 

316,  27  N.  E.  1081,  29  N.  E  289.  Works  Co.,  86  Tex.  485, 25  S.  W.  605. 

88 Seymour  v.  Tacoma,  6  Wash. 
138,  32  Pac.  1077. 


ill  l.K    OF    A.OTS. 


drainage  and  sewerage  in  densely  populated  townships 
where  there  was  a  public  water  supply,  it  was  held  the  words 
"  public  wain-  supply  "  covered  water-works  for  public  use, 
whether  owned  by  the  public  or  private  parties,  and  that 
an  aot  trained  on  that  basis  was  valid.1'-'  An  act  to  author- 
ize municipalities  to  acquire  toll  roads  within  their  limits 
may  authorize  such  toll-road  companies  to  sell  to  such  mu- 
nicipalities, but  a  provision  authorizing  them  also  to  sell  to 
any  person  or  corporation  would  be  without  the  title  and 
"An  act  authorizing  the  acquisition  of  turnpike 
s  and  highways  heretofore  or  hereafter  constructed, 
or  through  any  borough  or  township,  upon  which  tolls 
are  charged,"  provided  for  the  condemnation  of  any  such 
nad  wholly  within  a  county  and  imposed  payment  on  the 
county;  held,  that  the  title  was  misleading  as  to  the  roads 
embraced,  and  deficient  in  not  indicating  the  burden  imposed 
upon  the  county.94  "An  act  authorizing  the  inhabitants  of 
townships  to  purchase  and  erect  a  building  for  township 
purposes,"  may  provide  that  the  inhabitants  may  delegate 
the  authority  to  a  township  committee."5  An  act  to  author- 
ize the  erection  of  a  poor-house  may  provide  for  filling  va- 
cancies in  the  office  of  poor  directors.96  An  act  to  provide 
for  the  division  of  special  assessments  into  instalments  may 
provide  for  interest  on  the  deferred  instalments.97 

151.  Acts  relating  to  the  annexation  and  exclusion  of 
territory  to  or  from  municipalities.—  Where  the  title  in- 
dicates the  purpose  to  be  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
territory  to  municipalities,  it  is  sufficient  to  cover  a  provis- 
ion that  the  annexed  territory  shall  not  be  taxed  for  the 

,te  v.  Northampton  Tp.,  52  "»  Drew  v.  West  Orange,  64  N.  J. 

N.  .1.  L.  490.  1!)  Atl.  975.  L.  481,  45  Atl.  787. 

93T.                    irter,  93  Mich.  469,  ^Commonwealth  v.  Dickert,195 

Pa.  St.  234.  45  Atl.  1058. 

ttle   fiquimnnk,  etc.    Turn-  « McChesney  v.  Chicago,  159  HL 

pike  Co.,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  632;  Carbon-  223,  42  N.  E.  894. 
dale,  etc.  Road  Co.,  3  Pa.   Co.   Ct. 
460. 


TITLE    OF   ACTS. 


273 


old  debts  of  the  municipality,98  or  provisions  as  to  schools, 
where  the  boundaries  of  school  districts  are  interfered  with." 
But  where  the  title  relates  wholly  to  the  union,  division  and 
changing  the  boundaries  of  townships,  a  provision  that, 
when  territory  is  annexed  to  a  township  which  lies  wholly 
within  a  city,  the  city  shall  extend  over  the  annexed  terri- 
tory, is  without  the  title  and  void.1 

§  152.  Miscellaneous  acts  relating  to  municipal  corpo- 
rations.—  An  act  to  create  a  board  of  police  commission- 
ers, and  authorizing  the  appointment  of  a  police  force  for 
the  city  of  St.  Louis,  covers  provisions  for  the  appointment 
of  private  policemen,  watchmen  and  detectives,  and  requir- 
ing them  to  have  a  license,  and  making  it  a  misdemeanor 
for  any  to  act  in  such  capacity  without  a  license.2  An  act  to 
authorize  a  town  to  establish  a  board  of  health  does  not 
justify  a  provision  that  the  expense  of  the  board  shall  be 
chargeable  to  the  county.3  The  word  "cities  "  in  a  title  was 
held  not  to  include  towns.4  But  the  words  "  municipal  cor- 
porations "  were  held  to  include  township.5  An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  establishment  of  wards  in  cities  may  also  pro- 
vide for  dividing  the  wards  into  election  precincts.6  An 
act  was  entitled  "  An  act  relating  to  actions  against  cities, 
villages  or  boroughs  for  damages  to  persons  injured  on 
streets  and  other  public  grounds,  by  reason  of  the  negli- 
gence of  any  public  officer,  agent  or  employee  of  any  such 
city,  village  or  borough."  The  act  covered  injuries  by  rea- 
son of  any  defect  in  any  "  bridge,  street,   road,  sidewalk, 

98  Vernon  School  District  v.  Board        *  State  v.  Bedell,  67  N.  J.  L.  148, 
of  Education,  125  Cal.  593,  58  Pac.     50  Atl.  364. 

175.  5  Rathbone  v.    Hopper,  57  Kan. 

99  McGurnv.  Board  of  Education,     240,  45  Pac.  610.34  L.  R.  A.  674; 
133  111.  122,  24  N.  E.  529.  West  Plains  Tp.  v.  Sage,  69  Fed. 

i  Donnersberger  v.  Prendergast,  943,  16  C.  C.  A.  553,  32  U.  S.  App. 
128  111.  229,  21  N.  E.  1.  725. 

*  State  v.  Bennett,  102  Mo.  356, 14  6  State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L.  298, 
S.  W.  8G5.  30  Atl.  543. 

3  Quinn  v.  Cumberland  Co.,  162 
Pa.  St.  55,  29  Atl.  289. 
18 


J  7  t  TITLE    OF    ACTS. 

public  ground,   ferry  boat  or  public  works  of  any 

nod."      It    was  claimed    that   the    words  "other  public 

grounds"  in  the  title  were  to  be  construed  by  the  rule  ejus- 

i!  therefore  to  embrace  only  public  places  of 

tatnre  with  public  streets;  but  the  court  held  that  the 

rule  should  not  be  applied   to   defeat  the  act,  and  that  the 

rords  were  broad  enough  to  include  all   the  public  build- 
's mentioned  in  the  act.7     In  the  case  cited  a 
pumping  station  was  held  within  the  act  and  the  title.  "An 
act  to  disincorporate  the  city  of  Reno"  provided  for  the  en- 
forcement and  payment  of  claims  against  the  city,  and  also 
for  the  government  of  its  territory  by  the  county  board, 
were  held  to  be  within  the  title.8 
§  153.  Acts  relating  to  counties  and  county  seats. — 
An  act  to  provide  for  a  uniform  system  of  county  govern- 
ment does  not  cover  provisions  for  an  official  stenographer 
for  the  courts  of  the  county,  he  not  being  a  county  ollicer 
and  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  county  government.9 

•An  act  to  provide  for  the  creation  and  organization  of 
new  counties  and  government  of  the  same"  may  make  pro- 
vision for  the  location  of  the  county  seat,  the  organization 
of  towns  and  school  districts  therein,  and  the  adjustment  of 
indebtedness  between  the  new  and  old  counties.10  "An  act 
to  provide  for  the  payment  by  new  counties  of  their  pro- 
portionate share  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  older  counties 
from  which  they  were  taken  "  will  cover  provisions  apply- 
ing to  counties  created  before  the  act  was  passed.11     "An 

ict  to  better  define  the  boundary  lines  between  "  specified 
counties  will  not  cover  a  provision  taking  territory  from  a 
coanty  not  named  in  the  title  and  attaching  it  to  one  that 
is  named.12    Where  the  title  is  to  attach  K.  county  to  F. 

"  Winters  v.  Dnluth,  82  Minn.  127,        •"  State  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  67 
-  I  X.  W.  788.  Minn.  352,  69  X.  W.  1083. 

te  v.  Beck,  36  Xev.  68,  56  Pac.        "  Mills  County  v.  Brown  County, 

87  Tex.  475,  29  S.  W.  650. 
'  Pratt  v.  Brown,  135  Cal.  019,  G7        '-'State  v.  Baker,  129  Mo.  482,  31 
Patt  I  S.  W.  924. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  275 

county,  a  provision  attaching  it  to  H.  county  is  void.13  A 
title  "  to  provide  for  the  more  economical  management  of 
county  affairs"  was  held  not  sufficient  to  embrace  provis- 
ions fixing  the  salaries  of  county  officers  or  changing  the 
compensation  of  justices  of  the  peace.14  An  act  to  author- 
ize the  voters  of  a  county  to  vote  on  the  removal  of  the 
county  seat  will  not  cover  provisions  for  a  partition  of  the 
old  court-house  and  jail  property  owned  jointly  by  the 
county  and  city.15 

A  title  which  purports  to  authorize  counties  to  take  cer- 
tain steps  and  incur  certain  expense  does  not  justify  an  act 
which  requires  them  to  do  so.16  An  act  which  creates  an 
innovation  in  the  management  and  control  of  county  af- 
fairs should  have  its  real  purpose  clearly  indicated  in  the 
title.17  So  of  an  act  which  authorizes  other  than  the  regu- 
lar county  authorities  to  create  a  county  liability.18  An  act 
for  the  creation  of  a  new  county  may  provide  for  the  di- 
vision of  property  and  debts,  and  of  taxes  levied  but  not 
collected.19 

§  154.  Acts  relating  to  schools,  school  districts  and 
education. —  An  act  to  dissolve  school  districts  numbered 
4,  35  and  108  and  attach  them  to  school  district  numbered 
139,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  graded  school,  was  held  to 
express  but  one  subject,  the  forming  of  a  graded  school.20 

13  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  M  State  v.  Wabaunsee  Co.  Com'rs, 
Kearney  Co.,  58  Kan.  19,  48  Pac.  45  Kan.  731,  26  Pac.  483;  Stegmaier 
583.  v.  Jones,  203  Pa.  St.  47,  52  Atl.  56. 

14  Anderson  v.  "Whatcom  County,  17  State  v.  County  Com'rs,  47  Neb. 
15  Wash.  47,  45  Pac.  665,  33  L.  R.  428,  66  N.  W.  434;  Stegmaier  v. 
A.  37.  Jones.  203  Pa.  St.  47,  52  Atl.  56. 

15  Alexandria  Co.  Sup'rs  v.  Alex-  18  Dailey  v.  Pelter  County,  203 
andria,  95  Va.  469,  28  S.  E.  882.  Pa.  St.  593,  53  Atl.  498.  Compare 
But  an  act  to  provide  for  the  lo-  Read  v.  Clerfleld  County,  12  Pa. 
cation,  construction  and  mainte-  Supr.  Ct.  419. 

nance  of  the  University  of  Wash-  19  Kings  County  v.  Johnson,  104 
ington  was  held  sufficient  to  cover  Cal.  198,  37  Pac.  870. 
a  provision  for  the  sale  of  an  old  20Ash  v.  Thorp,  65  Kan.  60,  68 
site  donated  for  university  pur-  Pac.  1067.  In  Ackley  School  Dis- 
poses. Callvert  v.  Winsor,  26  Wash,  trict  v.  Hall,  113  U.  S.  135,  5  S.  C. 
4368,  67  Pac.  91.  Rep.  371,  28  L.  Ed.  954,  was  con- 


270 


1 1  ii  I     OF    Ads. 


Where  the  title  related  to  the  public  Bohoolsof  a  city,  provis- 
ions relating  to  districts  partly  within  and  partly  without. 
the  oity  were  hold  without  the  title.'-'1    An  aot  to  enable  the 


Bidered  an  "  Aol  to  authorize  inde- 
pendent BOhool  districts  to  borrow 
monej  and  issue  bonds  therefor  for 
the  purpose  of  erecting  and  com- 
pleting  Bohool  houses,  legalizing 
bonds  heretofore  issued,  and  mak- 
ing school  orders  draw  six  percent. 
interest  in  certain  cases,"  which 
was  held  not  in  violation  of  the 
provisions  of  the  state  constitution 
i  .  that  "every  act  shall  era- 
brace  but  one  subject  and  mat- 
ter properly  connected  therewith, 
which  subject  shall  be  expressed 
in  the  title.'1 

The  act  is  thus  summarized  in 
the  opinion  of  the  court: 

"The  act  contains  six  sections, 
the  fourth  providing  that  'all 
orders  shall  draw  six  per 
cent,  interest  after  having  been 
presented  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
district  and  not  paid  for  want  of 
funds,  which  fact  shall  be  indorsed 
upon  the  order  by  the  treasurer.' 
here  are  two  kinds  of  school 
districts  in  Iowa,  '  district  town- 
ship" and  'independent  district,' — 
the  latter  carved  out  of  the  for- 
mer.— it  is  contended  that  the  title 
to  the  act  in  question  embraces 
two  subjects:  one  relating  to  mat- 
ters in  which  independent  school 
districts  alone  are  concerned,  and 
the  other  to  matters  in  which  the 
-hip  district  and  independent 
districts  are  concerned;  that 
whether  school  orders,  which  may 
:  for  many  purposes,  by 
districts  of  either  kind,  should  bear 
interest  or  not,  is  wholly  foreign  to 


the  borrowing  of  money  to  build 

Sohool-bouses  in  independent  dis- 
tricts, Iowa  Code,  1873,  oh,  9,  tit. 
13. 

"  We  are  not  referred  to  any  ad- 
judication by  the  supreme  court 
of  Iowa  whioh  supports  the  point 
here  made.  On  the  contrary  the 
principles  announced  in  State  v. 
County  Judge,  2  Iowa,  281,  show 
that  the  act  before  us  is  not  liable 
to  the  objection  that  its  title  em- 
braces more  than  one  subject. 
.  .  .  The  doctrines  of  that  case 
have  been  approved  by  the  same 
court  in  subsequent  decisions,  and 
they  are  decisive  against  the  point 
here  raised.  Morford  v.  Unger,  8 
Iowa,  83;  Davis  v.  Woolhough,  9 
id.  104;  People  v.  Brislin.  70  111. 
423;  McAurich  v.  Railroad  Co.,  20 
Iowa,  342;  Farmers'  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Highsmith,  44  Iowa,  334.  The  gen- 
eral subject  to  which  this  special 
act  relates  is  the  system  of  common 
schools.  That  system  is  main- 
tained through  the  instrumentality 
of  district  schools  of  different 
kinds.  Provisions  in  respect  to 
these  instrumentalities  —  those  re- 
ferring to  the  erection  and  comple- 
tion of  school -houses  in  independ- 
ent school  districts  with  money 
raised  upon  negotiable  bonds,  and 
others,  to  the  rate  of  interest  which 
all  school  orders  shall  bear  —  relate 
to  the  same  general  object  and  are 
only  steps  towards  its  accomplish- 
ment." 

21  In  re  Consolidation  of  School 
Districts,  23  Colo.  409,  48  Pac.  647. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  277 

school  directors  of  the  borough  of  C.  to  establish  and  main- 
tain a  graded  school  does  not  cover  provisions  annexing 
territory  to  the  school  district  of  C.22  An  act  to  establish 
a  school  district  was  held  insufficient  to  cover  provisions 
forbidding  the  sale  of  liquors  within  the  district  and  impos- 
ing penalties  therefor.23  An  act  to  establish  a  text-book 
board  for  the  public  schools  of  C.  county  and  to  define  its 
powers  and  duties  provided  for  a  uniform  system  of  text- 
books to  be  selected  by  the  board  and  made  their  use  com- 
pulsory, and  that  books  once  selected  should  not  be  changed 
for  six  years.  The  claim  was  made  that  the  words  "  text-book 
board  "  did  not  mean  anything  in  particular  and  did  not  sug- 
gest the  purpose  of  the  act,  but  the  court  held  the  title 
sufficient.24  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  support  and  main- 
tenance of  the  University  of  Arkansas,"  abolished  the  office 
of  pomologist  connected  with  the  university  and  made  the 
various  appropriations  for  its  support.  It  was  held  to  em- 
brace but  the  one  subject  expressed  in  the  title.25  An  act  to 
provide  a  reform  school  for  juvenile  offenders  may  provide 
for  committing  such  offenders  thereto.26 

§  155.  Acts  relating  to  offices  and  officers. —  An  act  to 
create  the  office  of  county  controller  in  certain  counties  and 
prescribing  his  duties,  in  effect  abolished  the  office  of  county 
auditor  existing  in  some  of  the  counties.     It  was  held  that 

22  Payne  v.  School  District,  168  maintenance.  Economy  and  re- 
Pa.  St.  386,  31  Atl.  1076.  trenchment,  when  the  means  are 

23  Montgomery  v.  State,  88  Ala.  limited,  are  as  necessary  to  the 
141,  7  So.  51;  Glenn  v.  Lynn,  89  Ala.  maintenance  of  the  universities  as 
608,  7  So.  924.  it  is  of  individuals.     The  abolition 

24  State  v.  Griffin,  132  Ala.  47,  31  of  the  office  of  pomologist  relieved 
So.  112.  the  university  of  an  expense,  and 

25  Vincenhellerv.  Reagan,  69  Ark.  in  part  of  an  unauthorized  ex- 
460,  64  S.  W.  278.  The  court  says:  pense,  and  left  it  with  a  larger  ap- 
"The  object  of  the  act  in  question  propriation  to  accomplish  the  legit- 
was  the  maintenance  and  support  imate  objects  of  one  of  its  depart- 
of  the  university  of  the  state.  Any-  ments."    p.  473. 

thing  which  will  lessen  the  illegal        26  Ex  parte  Liddell,  93  Cal.  633,  29 
or  unnecessary  expenses  of  tliat  in-     Pac.  251. 
stitution  will  tend  to  its  legitimate 


■_7^  TITLE   OF    ACTS. 

this  feature  of  the  law  was  nol  expressed  in  tho  title.27  l*y 
an  existing  art  the  affairs  of  M.  county  were  managed  by 
a  board  of  three  commissioners.  An  act  was  passed  to  re- 
peal the  former  law  and  to  provide  for  two  commissioners 

to  sit  with  the  county  judge  for  the  transaction  of  county 
business.  A  provision  legislating  one  commissioner  out  of 
office  was  held  within  the  title.28 

An  act  to  provide  for  the  election  of  two  justices  of  the 
peace  for  a  city  and  to  repeal  an  act  providing  for  the  elec- 
tion of  four  justices  for  the  same  city,  continued  two  of  the 
lour  existing  justices  and  legislated  two  out  of  office.  The 
title  was  held  misleading  and  the  act  void.29 

••  An  act  defining  the  duties  of  state  controller"  imposed 
penalties  upon  other  ollicers  for  a  failure  to  settle  with  tho 
state  controller  as  required  by  law;  held  not  within  the 
title.30  An  act  to  provide  for  the  election  of  presidential 
electors  may  also  provide  for  the  election  of  alternates  and 
for  their  service  in  case  of  vacancy.31  "All  city  officers" 
in  a  title  may  include  the  clerk  of  the  city  court,  which, 
though  really  a  state  court,  has  always  been  provided  for 
in  acts  relating  to  the  city.32  An  act  to  provide  for  the 
election  or  appointment  of  officers  may  provide  for  their 
qualifications  or  term  of  office.33 

An  act  to  fix  the  fees  and  salaries  of  certain  officers  may 
contain  provisions  requiring  such  officers  to  account  for  all 
fees  and  to  pay  over  a  certain  part  to  the  county.34  Such  an 
act  may  provide  for  the  recovery  of  fees  illegally  charged,35 

■i"  Commonwealth  v.  Samuels,  163  32  Collins  v.  Rucsell,  107  Ga.  423, 

Pa.  -                ■  ML  909;  Common-  33  a  EL  444. 

wealth  %•.  Severn,  104  Pa.  St.  462,  80  ™  State  v.  Macklin,  41  Mo.  App. 

Atl.  391.  335;  State  v.  Connelly,  66  N.  J.  L. 

,te  v.  Steele,  39  Ore.  419,  65  197,  48  Atl.  955,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  469. 

Pac.  515.  The  contrary  is  intimated  in  Statu 

>ke  v.  Bydorn,  70  Mich.  273,  v.  Taylor,  21  Wash.  672,  59  Pac.  489. 

43  N.  W.  1122.  '  Bardy  v.  Kingman  Co.,  65  Kan. 

3tatev.  Hoadley,  20  Nev.  317,  111,  68  Pac.  1078. 

22  Pa  ib  Benson  v.   Christian,   129  Ind, 

IcPherson  v.  Blacker,  92  Mich.  535,  29  N.  E.  26. 
877,  52  N.  W.  400,  81  Am.  St.  Rep. 
587,  16  L  R.  A.  475. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  279 

or  impose  a  penalty  for  so  doing.36  So  it  may  limit  the 
number  of  their  deputies  and  fix  their  compensation,37  but 
may  not  create  the  office  of  deputy  and  fix  the  compensa- 
tion attached  thereto.38  "An  act  fixing  the  salaries  and 
compensation  of  the  officers  of  Humboldt  county  and  con- 
solidating certain  offices  in  that  count}7,"  among  other 
things,  provided  that  the  district  attorney  should  be  ex  officio 
superintendent  of  schools  and  that  the  latter  office  should 
be  consolidated  with  the  former.  The  provision  was  held 
within  the  title.39  So  under  the  title  to  regulate  the  salary 
of  an  officer,  it  was  held  germane  to  prescribe  his  duties 
and  to  impose  upon  him  the  duties  theretofore  performed 
by  another  officer  and  in  effect  to  abolish  the  latter  office.40 
Where  the  title  indicates  that  certain  additional  duties  will 
be  required  of  an  officer  and  that  he  will  be  authorized  to 
call  in  the  assistance  of  private  persons,  it  is  sufficient  to 
cover  provisions  for  making  compensation  for  such  services.41 
"When  the  title  expresses  the  purpose  to  be  to  reduce  the 
compensation  of  certain  officers,  provisions  which  increase 
their  compensation  are  void.4-  "  An  act  to  fix  the  fees  to  be 
collected  by  the  secretary  of  state  for  incorporation  and 
certain  other  privileges,"  fixed  fees  for  filing  certificates  of 
incorporation  and  provided  that  no  corporation  should  ex- 
ercise any  corporate  power  or  do  an}T  business  in  the  state 
until  the  fee  was  paid.  The  provision  was  held  germane.4' 
"An  act  providing  for  the  appointment  of  committees  to 
investigate  the  affairs  of  state  institutions  and  conduct  of 
officers,"  provided  for  removal  by  the  governor  of  officers 

36  Lowe  v.  Bourbon  Co.,  6  Kan.  i0  Trehy  v.  Marye,  100  Va.  40,  40 

App.  603,  51  Pac.  579.  S.  E.  126. 

:!"  Clark  v.  Finley,  93  Tex.  171,  54  41  Gunder  v.  Wyoming  County,  12 

S.  W.  343.  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  78. 

38  Milwaukee  Count}- v.  Isenring,  42Simard  v.  Sullivan,  71  Minn. 
109  Wis.  9,  85  N.  W.  131,  53  L.  R.  A.  517.  74  N.  W.  280;  State  v.  Sullivan, 
635.  72  Minn.  126,  75  N.  W.  8. 

39  State  v.  Humboldt  Co.  Com'rs,  43  Jones  v.  Aspen  Hardware  Co., 
21  Nev.  235,  29  Pac.  974.  21  Colo.  263,  40  Pac.  457,  52  Am.  St. 

Rep.  220,  29  L.  R.  A.  143. 


i  l  i  LB   OF    A.OTB. 

found  guilty  of  corruption,  venality,  inefficienoy,  miscon- 
dnct,  immorality  OP  inattention  to  duty:  held  within  title.44 

■•  An  aot  creating  the  office  of  the  state  board  of  auditors 
and  prescribing  the  duties  thereof,"  provided  that  the  sec- 
retary of  state,  state  auditor  and  attorney-general  should 
constitute  the  hoard  and  that  they  should  examine  the  books 
and  vouchers  of  the  state  treasurer  at  least  twice  a  year, 
that  the  treasurer  should  deposit  all  funds  in  banks,  to  be 
nated  by  the  board  and  governor,  that  such  banks 
should  give  bond  to  be  approved  by  the  board  and  gov- 
ernor, and  that  the  treasurer  should  not  be  liable  for  the  loss 
of  funds  so  deposited  by  the  failure  or  act  of  the  bank.  It 
was  held  that  the  subject  of  the  act  was  the  security  of 
state  funds  and  that  the  subject  was  not  expressed  in  the 
title.45  An  act  to  establish  an  office  may  provide  how  the 
election  to  the  office  may  be  contested  and  in  what  court.4fi 

§  156.  Acts  relating  to  irrigation,  drainage,  levees,  and 
the  like. —  An  act  "to  regulate  the  use  of  water  for  irrijm- 
tion,  and  providing  for  settling  the  priority  of  rights  thereto, 
and  for  payment  of  the  expenses  thereof,  and  for  payment 
of  all  costs  and  expenses  incident  to  said  regulations  and 
use,"  is  only  equivalent  to  the  briefer  title  which  might 
have  been  adopted:  An  act  to  regulate  the  use  of  water  for 
irrigation.  This  was  held  to  be  the  controlling  purpose  of 
the  law;  that  the  rest  of  the  title  refers  to  nothing  which 
is  not  germane  to  the  subject  thus  expressed.  Incidental 
to  a  proper  regulation  of  the  use  of  water  diverted  from 

44  Rodgers  v.  Morrill,  55  Kan.  737,  death  or  resignation,  and  nothing 
42  Pac.  355.  could  be  more  natural  than  to  look 
be  v.  Nomland,  3  N.  D.  427,  to  the  body  of  the  act  to  ascertain 
57  N.  W.  85,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  572.  what  provision  had  been  made  to 
te  v.  Slover,  134  Mo.  10,  31  insure  the  orderly  succession  in  the 
S.  W.  1054, 34 8.  W.  1102.  Speaking  incumbency  of  the  office,  and  to 
of  the  title,  the  court  says:  "At  provide  for  settling  the  dispute  of 
once  the  suggestion  comes  as  to  the  rival  claimants  thereto.  Certainly 
method  of  electing  or  appointing  such  a  provision  as  is  found  in  see- 
the incumbent,  the  length  of  his  tion  16  would  be  germane  to  the 
term,  the  salary  or  perquisites,  the  subject  and  would  have  an  obvious 
tilling  of   the  vacancy  in  case  of  connection  with  it.*'     pp.  17,  18. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  281 

natural  streams  in  (Colorado)  is  a  determination  of  the  pri- 
orities of  water  rights.47  An  act  to  provide  for  water  rights 
and  irrigation  may  include  provisions  for  condemning  land 
for  ditches  for  irrigation  purposes.48 

"An  act  to  provide  for  the  establishment,  construction 
and  maintaining  drains  in  this  state,'1  is  sufficient  to  cover 
all  the  provisions  of  a  general  drainage  law,  a  drainage  com- 
mission in  each  county,  levying  of  special  assessments,  issu- 
ing bonds,  creating  of  a  sinking  fund,  and  repeal  of  incon- 
sistent laws.49 

§  157.  Acts  relating  to  roads,  bridges,  ferries,  etc. — 
Acts  to  provide  for  the  construction  of  such  works  may 
confer  the  power  of  eminent  domain  for  that  purpose.50  An 
act  to  provide  for  laying  out,  opening  and  extending  streets 
in  municipalities  may  include  provisions  validating  former 
proceedings.51  Roads  and  bridges  are  not  distinct  subjects, 
and  may  be  legislated  upon  in  one  act.52  An  act  to  provide 
for  establishing,  working,  repairing  and  maintaining  the 
public  roads  and  bridges  in  the  several  counties  of  the  state 
authorized  the  levy  of  a  county  tax  for  the  purpose,  and 
provided  that  one-half  the  tax  on  property  in  incorporated 
towns  and  cities  should  be  turned  over  to  the  municipalities 
to  be  used  on  their  streets.  The  proviso  was  held  within 
the  title.53  An  act  to  appropriate  money  to  aid  in  building 
bridges  in  certain  counties  may  provide  that  the  counties 
shall  keep  such  bridges  in  repair.54     An  act  to  amend  the 

«  Golden  Canal  Co.  v.  Bright,  8  50  Slocum  v.  Neptune,  68  N.  J.  L. 

Colo.  144.  595,  53  Atl.  301;  Seabolt  v.  Com'rs, 

«  Paxton   &    Hershey  Irr.  C.  &  187  Pa.  St.  318,  41  Atl.  22. 

L.  Co.  v.  Farmers,'  etc.  Co.,  45  Neb.  51  San  Francisco  v.  Kiernan,  98 

884,  64  N.  W.  343,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  Cal.  614,  33  Pac.  720. 

585,  29  L.  R  A.  853.  52  state  v.  Street,  117  Ala.  203,  23 

«  Martin  v.  Tyler,  4  N.  D.  278,  60  So.  807. 

N.  W.  392,  25  L.  R.  A.  838;  Bye  v.  ™  County  Com'rs  v.  Jacksonville, 

Stafford,  4  N.  D.  304,  60  N.  W.  401;  36  Fla.  196,  18  So.  330. 

Wishmier  v.  State,  97  Ind.  160.    For  "State  v.  County  Com'rs.So  Winn, 

title  of  general  drainage  act  held  65,  85  N.  W.  830. 
sufficient  see  Lien  v.  County  Com'rs, 
80  Minn.  58,  82  N.  W.  1094, 


i  i  ri  1:   OF    .\r is. 

general  road  law,  which  was  applicable  to  counties  not  under 
township  organization,  contained  a  provision  that  the  amend 
act  should  apply  to  counties  under  township  organ- 
:i.      The  provision   was  held  void   as   not  within    the 
title 

r>s  (100).  Acts  relating  to  courts  and  judicial  prac- 
t  ice  and  proceedings.  -  <  >ne  act  may  relate  to  all  or  a  por- 
tion of  the  courts  of  a  state  in  defining  their  jurisdiction  or 
regulating  their  practice.  In  the  Matter  of  Wakker,88  an  act 
in  relation  to  justices'  and  police  courts  of  New  York  was 
held  not  to  be  obnoxious  to  constitutional  objection  on  ac- 
count of  two  courts  being  the  subject  of  legislation.  The 
court  say:  "It  was  the  object  of  this  law  to  establish  jus- 
courts  of  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  within  this 
city,  and  to  abolish  such  minor  jurisdictions  as  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  courts  to  be  created.  The  well-known  jurisdic- 
tion of  justices  of  the  peace  for  the  country  is  divided  by 
this  statute  between  the  new  justices  created  by  it,  upon 
one  set  of  whom  is  conferred  the  civil  and  upon  the  other 
the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  country  magistrates.  The 
office  of  justice,  its  tenure  and  jurisdiction,  and  the  compen- 
sation of  its  incumbents  are  provided  for,  and  clerks  are 
ordered  and  compensated  by  this  law."  It  provided  also 
that  its  provisions  should  be  applicable  to  the  justices  and 
clerk  of  the  marine  court.  That  court  was  substantially  a 
justice's  court,  it  being  distinguishable  only  by  having  ad- 
ditional jurisdiction  in  certain  marine  cases  not  cognizable 
si  ces,  ( »n  this  point  the  court  say:  "It  would  be  giv- 
ing an  undue  importance  to  this  one  feature  in  respect  to 
jurisdiction  to  hold  that  this  alone  deprived  it  of  the  char- 
acter of  a  justice's  court,  while  it  possessed  all  the  main 
characteristics  of  that  tribunal.  It  is  still  a  court  of  infe- 
rior and  limited  jurisdiction,  conducted,  in  all  respects  ma- 
il to  this  argument,  as  a  justice's  court.  If  this  be 
correct,  then,  in  the  strictest  construction  of  the  article  of 
the  constitution  under  consideration,  a  statute  in  relation 

lively  v.  Lankford,  174  Mo.  535,  71  S.  W.  835.  6«  3  Barb.  162. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  283 

to  justices'  courts,  confined  to  the  organization  and  regula- 
tion of  these  courts,  may  properly  embrace  in  its  provisions 
the  marine  court." 

An  act  was  held  valid  in  Kentucky  which  regulated  the 
jurisdiction  of  several  courts,  the  inferior  courts  of  the 
state.  It  was  an  act  to  regulate  the  civil  jurisdiction  of 
justices  of  the  peace,  police  judges  and  quarterly  courts,  and 
the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  courts  on  appeals 
from  their  judgments,  and  to  authorize  the  quarterly  courts 
to  appoint  clerks.  The  act  was  treated  as  one  to  regulate 
the  jurisdiction  of  several  of  the  courts  of  the  state.  The 
subject  was  deemed  single.57 

Where  the  title  was  to  create  new  courts  in  a  county  and 
to  limit  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace,  it  was  held 
not  to  express  two  subjects.58  An  act  for  the  better  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  the  town  of  Sweden  abolished  the 
office  of  police  justice  for  the  village  of  Brockport  within  the 
town  and  created  the  office  of  police  justice  for  the  town. 
The  act  was  held  valid.59  Under  a  title  to  establish  the  city 
court  of  Yaldosta  in  and  for  the  county  of  Lowndes,  a  pro- 
vision giving  the  court  jurisdiction  throughout  the  county 
was  held  germane.60  An  act  to  repeal  an  act  establishing 
municipal  courts,  passed  March  17,  1897,  continued  the 
courts  until  January  1,  1898.  This  was  held  within  the 
title.61  An  act  in  relation  to  superior  courts  and  the  elec- 
tion of  superior  court  judges  covers  provisions  for  division 
of  the  state  into  districts,  and  for  the  election  of  judges  in 
the  districts.62  An  act  concerning  evidence  provided  that 
the  court  might  make  an  order  for  the  examination  of  the 
person  of  the  plaintiff  in  personal  injury  cases  by  a  physician 
or  surgeon  in  order  to  qualify  him  as  a  witness  in  the  suit. 

57  Allen  v.  Hall,  14  Bush,  85.  60  Mattox  v.  State,  115  Ga.  212,  41, 

58  In  re  Greer,   58  Kan.  268,  48    S.  E.  709. 

Pac.  950.  61  Bogue  v.  Seattle,  19  Wash.  396, 

■w  People  v.  Lane,  53  App.  Div.     53  Pac.  548. 
531,  65  N.  Y.  S.  1004.  62  State  v.  Rusk,  15  Wash.   403, 

46  Pac.  387. 


TITLE    OF    At   is. 


The  provision  was  hold  within  the  title.™  An  act  was  en- 
titled "  An  act  respecting  writs  of  error."  A  supplement  to 
the  act  provided  for  the  review  of  cases  on  law  or  fact  by 

a  process  which  was  called  a  writ  of  error,  but  which  was 
if  the  nature  of  a  common-law  writ  of  error  but  of  an 
appeal.     It  was  held  not  to  be  within  the  title.'4     An  act 
stablish  a  court  necessarily  includes  provisions  for  the 
•intment  or  election  of  a  judge  and  other  officers,  and 
how  and  by  whom  jurors  should  be  chosen  and  summoned.65 
An   ait  to  provide  for  appeals  from  interlocutory  orders 
granting  injunctions  or  appointing  receivers  may  not  pro- 
vide for  an  appeal  from  an  order  refusing  to  dissolve  an 
injunction  or  to  discharge  a  receiver.66     Where  the  title 
was  "  An  act  authorizing  parties  defendant  in  certain  actions 
to  sever,  and  to  have  the  cause  as  to  themselves  transferred 
to  the  county  of  their  residence,"  a  provision  that  in  certain 
actions  a  single  defendant  may  have  such  transfer  is  void.117 


McGovern  v.  Hope,  63  N.  J.  L. 
76,  42  At!.  S30. 

M  Falkner  v.  Dorian d,  54  N.  J.  L. 
409,  24  Atl.  403.  The  court  says: 
"The  act  does  indeed  designate 
such  process  a  writ  of  error;  but 
that  does  not  make  it  such.  Be- 
sides, in  view  of  the  constitutional 
prescription,  such  new-fangled  pro- 
cess thus  sought  to  be  instituted 
must  have  been,  before  and  at  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  law,  of 
the  nature  of  a   writ  of  error,  or 

itle  was  grossly  illusive.  The 
proces-  contrived  by  this  law  has 
for  it>  function  the  removal  of  de- 

.'.s    founded   on   blended   law 

and    fact,    a   function   that   in  no 

sense  appertains  to  write  of  error, 

•  sole  ability  always  lias  been 

is  to  bring  before  the  higher 

• .  for  review  in  matters  of  law, 
the  judgments  of  inferior  jurisdic- 

.     Most  plainly,  the  procedure 


before  us  is  an  appeal,  and  not  one 
in  error. 

"  The  criterion  in  these  cases  is 
to  ascertain  as  closely  as  practi- 
cable what  impression,  as  to  the 
object  of  the  statute,  its  titular  ex- 
pression is  calculated  to  dissemi- 
nate. The  obvious  purpose  of  the 
requirement  is  to  give  information 
on  the  subject  to  legislators  and 
the  public.  Looking  at  the  title  of 
the  law  in  question  in  this  way,  it 
seems  quite  unreasonable  to  deny 
that  its  object  as  expressed  is 
wholly  misdescribed :  consequently 
it  is  erroneous  in  the  worst  degree, 
lor  it  is  misleading."     pp.  410,  411. 

65  Commonwealth  v.  Green,  58 
Pa.  St. 

«« Taylor  v.  Kirby,  31  111.  A  pp. 
658, 

bT  Saunders  v.  Savage,  108  Tenn. 
340,  07  S.  W.  471. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


285. 


§  159.  Acts  relating  to  probate  law  and  the  descent  and 
distribution  of  property. —  An  act  entitled  "An  act  to  es- 
tablish a  probate  code,"  covered  the  whole  subject  of  law 
usually  administered  in  probate  courts,  wills,  administration 
of  estates,  the  descent  and  distribution  of  property,  etc.  The 
title  was  held  sufficient  and  the  act  valid.68  A  comprehen- 
sive act  must  have  a  comprehensive  title  or  it  will  be  invalid.69 
An  act  to  amend  the  chapter  of  the  Revised  States  entitled 
"  Dower,"  by  adding  a  new  section  thereto,  provided  by  such 
new  section  that  the  husband  should  be  entitled  to  one-half 


68  Johnson  v.  Harrison,  47  Minn. 
575,  50  N.  W.  923,  28  Am.  St.  Rep. 
382.  The  court  says:  "The  word 
'code,'  as  now  generally  used,  and 
as  obviously  used  in  this  title, 
means  a  'system  of  law'  —  'a  sys- 
tematic and  complete  body  of  law.' 
And  while  the  word  '  probate '  orig- 
inally meant  merely  'relating  to 
proof,'  and  afterwards  '  relating  to 
the  proof  of  wills,'  yet  in  the  Amer- 
ican law  it  is  now  a  general  name 
or  term  used  to  include  all  matters 
of  which  probate  courts  have  juris; 
diction,  which  in  this  state  are  'the 
estates  of  deceased  persons  and 
of  persons  under  guardianship.' 
Hence  the  term  '  probate  code ' 
may  and  should  be  construed  as 
meaning  'the  body  or  system  of 
law  relating  to  the  estates  of  de- 
ceased persons  and  of  persons  un- 
der guardianship.'  In  common  un- 
derstanding this  is  as  distinct  and 
clearly  defined  a  branch  of  the  law 
as  is  criminal  law  or  corporation 
law,  and  in  popular  signification 
the  term  '  probate  law '  includes  all 
matters  of  which  probate  courts 
generally  have  jurisdiction,  among 
which  is  'estates  of  deceased  per- 
sons.' An  examination  of  this  act 
will  show  that  all  its  provisions  are 


connected  with  this  general  sub- 
ject. The  fact  that  some  of  them 
relate  to  matters  of  mere  procedure, 
while  others  define  and  fix  rights. 
of  property,  is  no  valid  objection 
to  the  law.  The  same  objection 
might  be  urged  against  many  acts 
the  constitutionality  of  which  has 
never  been  questioned.  Neither  is- 
the  fact  important  that  a  law  con- 
tains matters  that  might  be,  and 
usually  are,  contained  in  separate 
acts,  or  would  be  more  logically 
classified  as  belonging  to  different 
subjects,  provided  only  they  are 
germane  to  the  general  subject  of 
the  act  in  which  they  are  put.  The 
legislature  is  not  limited  to  the 
most  logical  or  philosophical  clas- 
sification. The  law  of  wills  and  of 
title  to  property  by  descent  is  a  part 
of  the  law  relating  to  the  estates  of 
deceased  persons,  and  hence  is,  in 
popular  understanding,  if  not  logic- 
ally, a  part  of  the  general  subject 
of  probate  law."    pp.  578,  579. 

^Trumble  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb. 
340,  55  N.  W.  869.  The  act  in  this 
case  was  an  attempt  to  combine  the 
law  of  dower,  curtesy,  descent  of 
property  and  homesteads  in  one  act 
with  a  misleading  and  insufficient 
title. 


n  i  LB   01    A.0TS. 

nd  personal  estate  of  his  wife,  when  she  died  intes- 
tate and  without  children  or  descendants.  Tins  was  held 
within  the  title.  The  court  says:  "While  the  title  of  the 
act  in  question  may  not  be  absolutely  correct  as  a  definition 
of  the  right  conferred  in  the  body  of  the  lull,  if  the  mean- 
the  term  dow<  r  is  to  bo  considered  as  it  was  used  and 
understood  at  common  law,  yet  it'  we  consider  it  in  the 
meaning  of  the  light  of  the  general  meaning  of  the  term 
that  with  which  one  is  gifted  or  endowed),  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  how  it  could  be  thought  a  deception  upon  the 
members  of  the  legislature;  or  how  it  could  have  operated 
to  mislead  them  as  to  the  chief  and  only  topic  of  the  bill, 
however  we  might  think  best  to  designate  or  classify  it."  :o 
••  An  act  in  regard  to  the  descent  of  property"  contained  a 
provision  that  marriage  should  be  deemed  a  revocation  of 
a  prior  will.  The  provision  was  held  valid,  and  the  court 
said  that  any  provision  as  to  what  should  be  deemed  intes- 
tate estate  would  be  germane  to  the  title.71  A  provision 
abolishing  dower  was  held  within  a  title  to  regulate  the 
ent  of  real  estate  and  the  distribution  of  personal  prop- 
erty.:- 

.:  160.  Acts  relating  to  elections. —  "An  act  to  regulate 
municipal  elections  in  the  city  of  Louisville,"  provided  for 
the  manner  of  voting  and  conducting  elections,  the  duties 
of  officers  of  elections,  and  imposed  penalties  for  violations 
of  the  act.  The  act  was  held  to  have  hut  one  subject  and 
the  provisions  to  be  germane.73  An  act  relating  to  elections 
made  provision  for  appointments  to  office  to  fill  vacancies; 
held  not  within  the  title.71  An  act  to  regulate  the  nomina- 
tion and  election  of  officers  does  not  cover  a  provision  for 

'Brien  v.  Ash,  169  Ma  288, 299,    Land  Co.,  54  Fed.  209,  4  C.  C.  A. 

200.  7  U.  S.  App.  494. 
T>  Hundall  v.  Ham,  172  111  70,  49        ":!  Rogers  v.  Jacob,  88  Ky.  502,  11 
N.  E.  S.  W.  518 

shards   v.    Bellingham    Bay        74  Ritchie  v.   Richards,  14  Utah, 

345,  47  Pao.  670 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  2S7 

voting  on  an  increase  of  municipal  indebtedness,  and  the 
same  was  held  void.75 

§  161.  Acts  relating  to  taxation  and  revenue. —  Under 
a  title  to  enable  a  public  corporation  to  raise  money  by  tax, 
provisions  may  be  included  not  only  prescribing  the  pro- 
cedure to  assess  and  collect  the  tax,  but  the  objects  may  be 
designated  for  which  the  money  is  to  be  raised.76  An  act 
entitled  a  supplement  to  "An  act  concerning  taxes  "  is  not 
open  to  the  objection  that  it  embraces  more  than  one  sub- 
ject expressed  in  its  title  because  it  deals  with  several  de- 
tails of  the  matter  of  taxes.77  An  act  for  the  more  rigid 
collection  of  the  revenue  properly  provides  for  the  different 
classes  of  taxes  and  defines  the  duties  of  officers  charged 
with  their  collection.  It  may  define  the  jurisdiction  of  jus- 
tices in  revenue  cases  and  prescribe  the  practice.73  A  stat- 
ute of  limitations  may  be  inserted  in  a  tax  law  for  the  pur- 
pose of  aiding  and  assisting  in  the  collection  of  taxes.79 
Where  the  title  is  in  general  words  relating  to  the  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  taxes,  or  concerning  taxation  and 
revenue,  or  to  provide  revenue  for  the  state,  the  following 
provisions  have  been  held  to  be  germane  and  included  in 
the  title:  A  provision  as  to  the  rate  of  taxation;80  a  pro- 
vision imposing  a  tax  upon  the  unsuccessful  party  in  civil 
suits,  and  upon  each  indictment  or  presentment  the  sum  of 
five  dollars,  to  be  taxed  and  paid  as  part  of  the  costs  in  the 
case;81  provisions  defining  peddlers,  requiring  them  to  take 
out  a  license,  that  all  notes  given  for  articles  or  rights  sold 
by  peddlers  shall  have  written  or  printed  across  their  face 

™  Evans  v.  Willistown   Tp.,  168  ™  state  v.  Whitworth,  8  Lea,  594; 

Pa.  St.   578,  32  Atl.  87;  Common-  Ensign  v.  Basse,  107  N.  Y.  329,  14 

wealth  v.  Weir.  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  425.  N.  E.  400.     See  State  v.  Wardens, 

<6  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  23  La.  Ann.  720. 

8  N.  Y.252;  Sharp  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  79  Bowman  v.  Cockrill,  6  Kan.  311. 

31  Barh.  572-575;  Smith  v.  Mayor,  so  Manchester  v.  People,  178  111. 

etc.,  34  How.  Pr.  508.  285,  52  N.  E.  964. 

"  Kirkpatrick  v.  New  Brunswick,  si  ex  parte  Griffen,  88  Tenn.  547, 

40  N.  J.  Eq.  46;  Brown  v.  State,  73  13  S.  W.  75. 
Ga.  38. 


28S  i  i  i  I  l.    OF    ACTS. 

the  wcrds  ••  Peddler's  Note,"  and  that  notes  not  so  indorsed 
shall  be  void;85  a  provision  that,  after  a  tax  is  delinquent, 
any  person  may  pay  the  tax  and  interest  and  that  the  treas- 
urer shall  thereupon  issue  to  Buoh  person  a  certificate  of 

such  payment,  which  shall  contain  a  guaranty  of  the  county 

or  municipality  that  if  the  tax  is  void  it  will  refund  to  the 
holder  the  amount  paid  and  interest.88  But  in  another  case 
it  was  held  that  a  provision  that,  when  taxes  are  paid  on 
land  not  subject  to  taxation,  the  money  shall  be  refunded 
with  interest  to  the  person  making  the  payment,  was  not 
within  the  title  of  an  act  relating  to  the  levy  and  collection 
of  ta\ 

An  act  to  create  a  state  board  of  equalization  may  pro- 
vide that  the  state  tax  shall  be  apportioned  on  the  basis  of 
qualized  valuation  as  fixed  by  such  board.85  "An  act 
to  create  a  treasurer  of  Calvert  count)7  and  to  provide  for 
the  collection  of  taxes  therein,1'  provided  for  such  treas- 
urer,  and  authorized  him  to  appoint  a  deputy,  and  provided 
that  such  deputy  should  act  as  clerk  of  the  county  commis- 
sioners. It  was  held  that  the  subject  of  the  act  was  the 
collection  of  taxes  in  the  county,  and  that  the  provisions 
were  all  germane  to  this  subject/6  Where  the  title  refers 
t<>  the  assessment  of  tracts  of  land  divided  by  county  lines, 
provisions  as  to  the  assessment  of  lands  divided  by  borough 
or  township  lines  are  not  within  the  title.87  "An  act  for 
the  taxation  of  dogs  and  protection  of  sheep,"  provided 
that  dogs  should  be  deemed  personal  property  and  the  sub- 
ject of  larceny.  The  provision  was  held  germane.88  An 
amendment  to  an  act  relating  to  the  lien  of  taxes  as  be- 
tween  vendor  and  vendee  provided  that  when  a  merchant 

,nn    v.   Citizens'   Bank,    107  88 County  Com'rs    v.  Hellen,  72 

B.  W.  665.  Md.  60:i,  20  Atl.  130. 

:••  v.   Whittlesey,  17  Wash.  87  La  Plume  v.  Gardner.  148  Pa. 

I  Pac.  119.  St.  192,  23  Atl.  899. 

MDivet  v.Richland  Co.,  8  N.  D.  88 Commonwealth  v.  Depuy,  148 

65,  76  N.  W.  Pa.  St,  201,  23  Atl.  896. 
•..  Linn  County,  25  Ore. 
.  297. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  280 

sold  a  stock  of  goods  in  bulk  after  the  tax  thereon  was  pay- 
able, the  tax  should  be  a  lien  on  the  goods  in  the  hands  of 
the  vendee,  and  that  when  the  sale  took  place  after  the  as- 
sessment was  made  and  before  the  tax  was  due  or  payable, 
the  auditor  should,  on  notice,  substitute  the  name  of  the 
vendee  in  place  of  that  of  the  vendor  in  the  assessment,  and 
thereupon  the  tax  should  be  collectible  against  the  vendee 
the  same  as  though  originally  assessed  in  his  name.  The 
latter  was  held  not  within  the  title.89  An  act  to  provide 
for  an  appeal  from  the  order  of  county  commissioners  dis- 
allowing a  petition  to  modify  an  assessment  for  taxation 
may  provide  what  the  original  petition  to  the  county  com- 
missioners shall  contain  and  that  the  court,  on  appeal,  shall 
be  governed  by  the  values  fixed  upon  similar  property.90 
"An  act  to  authorize  boards  of  supervisors  to  provide  for 
the  discovery  of  property  withheld  from  taxation,  and  to 
list  the  same  and  collect  taxes  thereon,  and  to  legalize  con- 
tracts heretofore  made  for  that  purpose  by  boards  of  super- 
visors upon  certain  conditions,"  covered  the  ground  indi- 
cated by  the  title,  and  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject 
and  provisions  properly  connected  therewith,  and  to  be 
valid.91  "An  act  to  tax  intestate  estates,  gifts,  legacies  and 
collateral  inheritance  in  certain  cases,"  was  held  insufficient 
to  cover  a  tax  on  a  devise  of  lands,  as  it  did  not  fall  within 
any  of  the  classes  specified  in  the  title.92  "An  act  to  allow 
further  time  to  the  treasurer  of  Henrico  county  to  make 
returns  of  delinquent  taxes,"  applied  to  ex-treasurers  only 
and  was  held  misleading  and  void.93  "An  act  to  increase 
the  revenues  of  the  state  by  changing  and  increasing  the 
boundaries  of  the  counties  of  Billings,  Stark  and  Mercer," 
simply  increased  the  counties  specified.     As  this  did  not 

89  Rex  Lumber  Co.  v.  Reed,  107  92  Grossman  v.  Hancock,  53  N.  J. 
Iowa,  111.  77  N.  W.  572.  L.  139,  32  AtL  689. 

90  Catron   v.   County  Com'rs,  18  93  Henrico     Co.    Sup'rs     v.    Mc- 
Colo.  553,  33  Pac  513.  Gruder,  84  Va.  828,  G  S,  E.  232. 

91  Beresheim  v.  Arnd,  117  Iowa, 
83,  90  N.  W.  506. 

19 


TITI.i:    OP    ACTS. 

affect  the  revenues  of  the  state,  it  was  held  that  the  title 
did  not  express  the  Bubjeot  of  the  aot.M 

162.  Cuiativc   arts  and  provisions. —  A  curative  act 
may  apply  to  any  number  of  instruments  or  proceedings. 

I  mi ■•  act  Legalized  the  proceedings  in  three  separate  towns, 
though  taken  distinct  from  each  other,  to  issue  bonds  in  aid 
of  a  railroad.  By  miscarriage  of  some  promoters  of  them 
they  failed  to  comply  with  the  law  under  which  they  were 
a  foot,  so  as  not  to  be  efficacious.  It  was  held  that  the 
bill  contained  but  one  subject.95  The  court  said  it  was  a 
local  bill,  to  have  effect  upon  that  separate  portion  of  the 
state.  The  object  of  it  was  to  legalize  and  validate  certain 
doings  in  that  territory,  which,  although  carried  on  distinct 
fiom  each  other,  had  a  common  aim  and  purpose.  So  an 
act  to  confirm,  reduce  and  levy  certain  assessments  in  the 
city  of  B.  was  held  to  embrace  but  one  subject.96 

As  a  general  rule  an  act  to  revise,  consolidate  or  amend 
a  charter,  or  to  revise  or  amend  an  act  conferring  powers, 
may  legalize  defective  acts  and  proceedings  taken  under 
the  act  or  charter  revised  or  amended.97  An  act  conferring 
upon  count}'  boards  power  to  make  certain  contracts  may 
confirm  like  contracts  previously  made  without  authority.98 
An  act  conferring  additional  powers  upon  the  town  board 
of  Jamaica  relative  to  the  public  lands  in  such  town  au- 
thorized the  sale  and  lease  of  such  lands,  provided  how 
such  sales  and  leases  should  be  made,  and  that  they  should 
"  be  subject  to  existing  leases,  which  leases  are  hereby  rati- 

9*  Richard  v.  Stark  County,  8  N.  Ass'n,   96   Va.    119,   30    S.   E   440. 

79  N.  W.  863.  Compare  Snell  v.  Chicago,  133  111. 

ogera  v.Stephens.  86  N.  Y.  623.  413,  24  N.  E  532,  8  L.  R.  A.  858; 

re  Van  Antwerp,  1  T.  &  C.  Matter  of    City  of    Rochester,  77 

A  pp.  Div.  28,  79  N.  Y.  S.  236;  Per- 

rk  v.  Modern  Woodmen,  181  cival   v.  Cowychee,  etc.   Dist,   15 

II!.    214,   54   N.    E.  93,>;   People   v.  Wash.  480,  46  Pac.  1035;  Rogers  v. 

Sutphin,  1<',6   N.  Y.    168,  59   N.  E  Union  Ry.  Co.,  10  Misc.  57, 30  N.  Y. 

770;  Nottage  v.  Portland,  35  Ore.  S.  855. 

58  Pac.  883,  76   Am.  St.  Rep.        »8Beresheim  v.  Arnd,  117  Iowa, 

Bosang  v.  Iron  Belt  B.  &  L.  83,  90  N.  W.  506. 


TITLE   OF   ACTS.  291 

iied  and  confirmed"     The  italics  was  held  not  to  be  within 
the  title." 
§  163.  Acts  relating  to   intoxicating  liquors. —  As  a 

means  of  enforcing  a  law  for  regulating  and  licensing  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  it  may  provide  that  a  house 
where  such  liquors  are  sold,  if  kept  in  a  disorderly  manner, 
may  be  deemed  a  common  nuisance;  that  so  keeping  it 
shall  cause  a  forfeiture  of  the  license,  and  subject  the  pro- 
prietor to  a  fine.1  For  a  like  purpose  the  act  may  provide 
that  the  applicant  for  a  license  shall  give  a  bond  to  the 
state  conditioned,  among  other  things,  that  he  will  pay  all 
fines  and  costs  that  may  be  assessed  against  him  for  violat- 
ing the  provisions  of  the  act.2  As  a  means  of  enforcing  the 
payment  of  a  special  tax  on  dealers  in  liquors,  it  is  germane 
to  provide  that  upon  failure  to  pay  such  tax  the  dealer  may 
be  indicted  and  punished  for  a  misdemeanor.3 

Where  the  title  indicates  the  purpose  of  the  act  to  be  to 
regulate  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  it  may  include  all 
the  various  means  of  enforcing  compliance  with  the  act,4 
may  include  penalties  for  violation,  confer  jurisdiction  of 
suits  for  such  violation  and  provide  for  remonstrances 
against  the  granting  of  licences.5  Such  an  act  may  provide 
for  local  option  and  prohibit  sale  in  localities  which  vote 
for  prohibition,  and  such  partial  prohibition  will  be  deemed 
regulation  within  the  title  of  the  act.6  The  following  pro- 
visions have  also  been  held  germane  and  within  such  a  title: 
that  it  should  be  unlawful  to  permit  any  minor  to  remain 
in  the  room  where  liquors  are  sold,7  that  the  dealer  should 

9»  Wenk  v.  New  York,  82  App.  4  Wilson  v.  Herink,  64  Kan.  607, 

Div.  584,  81  N.  Y.  S.  583.  68  Pac.  72. 

i  Fletcher  v.  State,  54  Ind.  462;  »  State  v.  Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439, 

O'Kane  v.  State,  69  Ind.  183;  State  44  N.  E.  469. 

v.  Owens,  9  Kan.  App.  595,  58  Pac.  6  State  v.  Forkner,  94  Iowa,  1,  62 

240.  N.  W.  683;  State  v.  Gloucester  Co., 

2  Kane  v.  State,  78  Ind.  103.  50  N.  J.  L.  585,  15  Atl.  272. 

3  Brown  v.  State,  73  Ga.  38;  1  People  v.  Japinga,  115  Mich.  222, 
Howell    v.   State,  71  Ga.   224,  51  73  N.  W.  111. 

Am.  Rep.  259. 


M  I  IK   vl-    A.OTS. 

give  bond  to  comply  with  the  act,  and  that  any  person  ag- 
grieved by  such  violation  might  sue  on  the  bond  and  re- 
cover live  hundred  dollars  Liquidated  damages  for  each 
breach  of  the  condition.8 

A  provision  that  part  of  the  revenue  derived  from  licen- 
tould  be  expended  on  the  public  roads  was  held  ger- 
mane.9 An  act  to  regulab  the  sale  of  Liquor  may  not  alto- 
gether prohibit  the  sale.1"  When  the  title  refers  to  sales 
only,  provisions  as  to  giving  away  or  otherwise  disposing 
of  liquor  arc  not  included." 

An  act  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  liquors,  like  an  act  to  regu- 
late their  sale,  may  embrace  all  the  provisions  necessary  for 
its  enforcement,  including  penalties,  and  the  designation  of 
a  tribunal  to  try  violations  of  the  act.12  It  has  been  held 
that  an  act  to  prohibit  the  sale  may  simply  regulate  the 
sale:  the  court  holding  that  "  regulating  a  thing  is  the  pro- 
hibition of  it,  except  in  accordance  with  certain  rules." 13  xVn 
act  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  liquor  provided  for  refunding  the 
money  paid  on  unexpired  licenses;  held  not  within  the  title.1* 
An  act  to  license  the  sale  of  liquor  may  impose  a  penalty 
for  selling  without  a  license.15  "Where  the  title  specified  the 
territory  in  which  it  was  to  operate,  and  the  act  specified 
different  territory,  it  was  held  void.16  A  provision  making 
the  operation  of  the  act  conditioned  on  the  result  of  a  popu- 
lar vote  is  germane.17  "Where  the  title  applies  to  cities  only 
ict  may  not  include  towns.18    An  act  relating  to  gam- 

8Peavy  v.  Goss,  90  Tex.  89,  37  S.  14  Bradley  v.  State,  90  Ala.  177, 

W.  817.  13  So.  415. 

*  Lynch  v.  Murphy,  119  Mo.  103,  15  Burns  v.  State,  104  Ga.  544.  30 

\V.  774  S.  E  815.     Contra,  Sasser  v.  State, 

rabb  v.  State.  88  Ga.  584,  15  99  Ga.  54,  25  S.  E.  011). 

155;  Yahn  v.  Merritt,  117  Ala.  »Ryno  v.  State,  58  N.  J.  L.  238, 

!  .  So.  71.  33  Atl.  219. 

»  State  v.  Davis.  130  Ala.  148,  30  "  McGruder  v.  State,  83  Ga.  616, 

So.  344,  89  Am.  St.  Rey.  23.  10  S.  E.  441;  Whitman  v.  State,  80 

12  McTigue  v.  Commonwealth,  99  Md.  410,  31  Atl.  325. 

Ky.   66.   :r>  S.    W.   121;    Brown   v.  W  Jones  v.  Morristown,  66  N.  J.  L. 

Hart,  97  Ky.  735.  31  S.  W.  786.  488,  49  Atl.  440. 


u 


Cantini  v.  Tillman,  54  Fed.  9C9. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  293 

Wing  devices  in  dramshops  provided  that  the  dramshop 
keeper  should  not  keep,  or  permit  to  be  kept,  in  or  about 
his  dramshop,  any  billiard,  pool  or  other  gaming  table, 
bowling,  or  ten-pin  alley,  cards,  dice,  or  other  device  for 
gaming  or  amusement,  and  should  not  "permit  any  spar- 
ring, boxing,  wrestling,  or  other  exhibition  or  contest  or 
cock  fight  in  his  dramshop."  The  whole  was  held  to  be 
within  the  title.  It  was  held  that  "device"  might  mean 
any  contrivance,  or  anything  contrived  or  planned,  and  so 
include  the  provision  quoted.19 

§  164.  Pure  food  laws. — An  act  entitled  "to  prevent  de- 
ception in  the  sale  of  dairy  products,  and  to  preserve  the 
public  health,"  goes  beyond  its  title  in  making  the  manu- 
facture of  imitation  butter  a  crime.20  So  of  an  act  "to  pro- 
hibit and  prevent  adulteration,  fraud  and  deception  in  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  articles  of  food  and  drink."21  An 
act  "to  prevent  fraud  in  the  sale  of  lard  "  forbade  the  sale 
of  any  article  intended  for  use  as  lard  which  contained  any 
ingredient  other  than  pure  fat  of  healthy  swine,  unless  it 
was  labeled  "compound  lard"  and  showed  the  ingredients 
it  contained.  This  was  held  within  the  title.22  An  act 
"  to  provide  against  the  adulteration  of  food  "  declared  it  to 
be  an  adulteration  "  if  any  inferior  or  cheaper  substance  or 
substances  have  been  substituted  in  whole  or  in  part  for  it," 
or  "if  it  is  an  imitation  of  or  is  sold  under  the  name  of  an- 
other article."     These  were  held  within  the  title.23 

19  State  v.  Blackstone,  115  Mo.  nocent  and  contain  no  element  of 
424,  22  S.  W.  370.  wrong,  there  must  be  something  in 

20  Northwestern  Manuf'g  Co.  v.  the  title  to  show  such  purpose  or 
Wayne  Circuit  Judge,  58  Mich.  331,  object,  under  section  20,  article  4, 
2.")  N.  W.  372,  55  Am.  Rep.  693.  See  of  the  constitution.  The  title  con- 
People  v.  Arensberg,  105  N.  Y.  123,  tains  not  even  an  intimation  that  an 
11  N.  E.  277,  59  Am.  Rep.  483.  entirely  innocent  act  is  to  be  made 

21  Grosvenor  v.  Duffy,  121  Mich,  a  crime."  p.  223. 

220,  80  N.  W.  19.     The  court  says:  2-  State  v.  Snow,  81  Iowa.  642, 47  N. 

"When  the  legislature  attempts  to  W.  777,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  855. 

change  definitions,  and  to  make  23  Commonwealth  v.  Curry,  4  Pa. 

acts  criminal  which  are  x>er  se  in-  Supr.  Ct.  356. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 

§  166.  Acta  relating  to  gaming,  pool-selling,  etc. —  An 
act  to  prevent  gaming  may  make  it  an  offense  to  keep  any 
house  or  place  for  the  purpose  of  betting  therein,21  or  give 
an  action  to  recover  hack  money  lost  at  gaming.28  "  An  act 
to  prohibit  the  use  of  clock,  tape,  slot  or  other  machines  or 
or  gambling  purposes,"  may  embrace  provisions  to 
punish  for  operating,  keeping,  owning,  renting  or  using  such 
machines  or  devices  for  gambling  purposes.26 

An  act  to  prohibit  book-making  and  pool-selling  may  be 
limited  in  its  application  to  events  taking  place  without  the 
state.87  The  title  of  an  act  may  bo  broad  enough  to  include 
all  forms  of  gambling,88  but  when  it  relates  to  one  form  only, 
such  as  pool-selling,  provisions  as  to  other  forms  of  gambling 
will  be  void."' 

§  166.  Acts  relating  to  fish, game,  etc. —  An  act  for  the 
protection  of  game,  wild  fowl  and  birds  may  include  both 
game  and  non-game  birds  in  its  provisions.  "It  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed,''  says  the  court,  "the  general  assembly,  in  framing 
the  title  to  the  act,  employed  the  word  'game' in  its  proper 
sense,  and  therefore  as  including  all  game  birds,  game  fowl 
and  all  same  animals.  That  being  true,  it  is  clear  the  words 
'wild  fowl  and  birds'  were  added  for  the  reason  the  word 
'game'  did  not  include  certain  species  of  wild  fowl  and 
birds  designed  to  be  protected  bv  the  act.  The  intent  which 
controlled  in  the  addition  of  these  words  was,  that  the  title 
should  disclose  that  birds  and  fowl  which  were  not  game 
birds  or  game  fowl  were  objects  of  the  enactment."30 

In  Maryland  it  is  held  that  a  provision  making  it  unlaw- 
ful for  one  to  have  in  his  possession  during  the  closed  season 
birds  or  game  brought  from  another  state  is  within  the  title 

2*  Lescallett  v.    Commonwealth,  28  Benners  v.  State,  124  Ala.  97, 26 

89  Va.  878,  17  S.  E.  54ft,  So.  942. 

lingv.  Crummey,  5  Wash.  29 Lacey   v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159, 

2 1  S.  E  930,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  795. 

•. .    I  ►eople,  173  111.  19,  50  30  Meul  v.  People,  198  I1L  258,  260, 

64  Am.  St.  Rep.  64.  64  N.  E  1106. 
ite  v.  Burgdoerfer,  107  Mo.  1, 
17  S.  W.  Sift 


TITLE    OF   ACTS. 


295 


of  an  act  for  the  protection  and  preservation  of  birds  and 
game,31  but  the  contrary  is  held  in  Minnesota.32  An  act  to 
regulate  the  catching  of  fish  forbade  the  taking  of  fish  dur- 
ing a  certain  period  of  the  year.  This  was  held  to  be  reg- 
ulation and  within  the  title.33  An  act  to  protect  salmon 
and  other  food  fishes  may  forbid  the  casting  into  streams 
of  saw  dust,  shavings  and  waste  lumber.34  An  act  to  pro- 
hibit the  catching  of  game  fish  in  certain  cases  required  the 
owners  of  dams  to  make  fish-ways.  This  was  held  not  within 
the  title.35 

§  167.  Acts  relating  to  crimes  in  general. —  An  act  to 
punish  cheats,  frauds,  etc.,  may  prescribe  the  form  of  indict- 
ment.36 Where  the  title  relates  to  misdemeanors  only,  pro- 
visions as  to  felonies  are  void.37  An  act  to  prohibit  the  prac- 
tice of  blacklisting  made  it  unlawful  for  any  company,  cor- 
poration or  partnership  to  prevent  or  hinder  any  discharged 
employee,  or  employee  who  had  voluntarily  left  the  service, 
from  obtaining  employment  elsewhere;  held  within  the 
title.38  An  act  "  to  provide  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  in 
certain  cases,"  made  it  a  felony  to  take  indecent  liberties 
with  male  children.  It  was  held  that  the  title  gave  no  hint 
as  to  the  character  of  the  act  to  be  punished  and  therefore 
failed  to  comply  with  the  constitution.39  A  title  "  to  define 
and  suppress  vagrancy  "  was  held  to  cover  provisions  as  to 
the  fees  of  constables  and  magistrates  in  enforcing  the  law.4" 
An  act  to  add  a  new  section  to  sub-title  "  Rivers  "  in  article 
30  of  the  code,  entitled  "  Crimes  and  Punishments,"  pro- 
si  Stevens  v.  State,  89  Md.  669,  43  36  state  v.  Morgan,  112  Mo.  202, 
Atl.  829.  20  S.  W.  456. 

32  State  v.  Chapel,  63  Minn.  535,        3?  Harper  v.  State.  109  Ala.  28,  19 
65  N.  W.  940.  So.  857;  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala. 

33  Osborn     v.    Charlevoix    Circ.     66,  19  So.  901. 

Judge,  114  Mich.  655,  72  N.  W.  982.  ss State  v.  Justus,  85  Minn.  279, 
3*  State  v.  Shaw,  22  Ore.  287,  29    88  N.  W.  759,  89  Am.  St,  Rep.  550. 

Pac.  1028.  39  In  re  Snyder,  108  Mich.  18,  65 

35  West  Point  Water  Power  &  L.     N.  W.  562. 

I.  Co.  v.  State,  49  Neb.  223,  68  N.        <°Hays  v.  Cumberland   County, 

W.  507.  5  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  159;  affirmed,  186 

Pa.  St.  109,  40  AtL  282. 


TITLE   OF    A.I 

vided  in  tin1  new  section  that  it  should  be  a,  penal  offense  to 
dredge,  take  or  carry  away  Band  or  gravel  from  the  l>ed  of 
the  Potomac.  The  section  was  held  within  the  title.41  An 
act  relative  to  disorderly  persons  defined  who  should  be  con- 
sidered disorderly  persons  and  included  drunkards  and  tip- 
plers.    This  was  held  within  the  title.4-'     An  act  to  amend 

on  4614  of  the  code  so  as  to  raise  the  age  of  consent,  as 
set  forth  in  said  section,  to  twelve  years,  and  to  prescribe 
punishment  in  the  penitentiary  against  persons  having  car- 
nal knowledge  of  females  over  twelve  and  under  sixteen, 
was  held  to  express  but  one  subject,  and  a  provision  making 
all  persons  aiding  or  abetting  the  crime  principals,  was 
held  germane.43  "Where  the  title  relates  to  crimes  and  pun- 
ishments and  criminal  proceedings,  provisions  relating  to  a 
civil  proceeding  in  bastardy  are  not  within  the  title.44  An 
act  with  a  similar  title  prohibited  the  sale  or  keeping  for 
sale  of  cigarettes  and  also  imposed  a  license  tax  upon  any 
person  who  sold  or  kept  the  snme  for  sale  and  upon  the  real 
estate  where  the  same  were  sold  or  kept  for  sale.  The  pro- 
vision for  a  license  tax  was  held  to  be  in  the  nature  of  an 
additional  penalty,  to  tend  to  the  suppression  of  the  traffic, 
and  to  be  within  the  title.45 

168.  Acts  relating  to  convicts  and  penal  institutions. 
The  following  provisions  were  held  not  to  be  within  a  title 
to  regulate  the  management  of  state  and  county  convicts: 

*i  State  v.  Norris,  70  Md.  91,  10  language    we    have    employed,  is 

Atl.  -1  '•'>.  clearly  expressed  in  the  title  when 

*2  People  v.  Kelly,  99  Mich.  82,  57  reduced  to  its  shortest  meaning 

N.  W.  1000.  and  read  in  connection  with  the 

.  Brown,  10:)  Term.  449,  law   amended,    and   such   a   title, 

'v.  7J7.     The  court  says:  "In  though    sufficiently    broad   in   its 

reality,  the  subject   is  single,  and  scope  to  include  two  or  more  ditfer- 

jee  indicated  relate  ent  grades  or  c-lasses  of  crime,  is, 

to  different  ]  ;trt-  of  that  one  sub-  nevertheless,  single  and  expresses 

which  is  the  prevention  and  but  one  subject." 

at  of  carnal  connection  44  State  v.  Tieman,  32  Wash.  294. 

with  young  females.     This  subject,  «Cook  v.  Marshall   County,  119 

though    not    formulated  in      the  Iowa,  384,  93  N.  W.  372. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  297 

providing  for  additional  imprisonment  for  costs;46  provid- 
ing for  payment  by  the  state  of  certain  costs  in  criminal 
trials;47  providing  that  when  the  term  of  sentence  is  two 
years  or  less,  the  sentence  shall  be  to  hard  labor  for  the 
county,  and  when  for  more  than  two  years,  to  hard  labor  in 
the  penitentiary.48  An  act  to  amend  a  specified  contract 
for  convict  labor  may  not  provide  for  leasing  the  convict 
labor.49 

An  act  to  revise  the  laws  relative  to  the  state  prison  may 
provide  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  committed  by  con- 
victs within  the  prison.50  But  a  provision  that  if  any  con- 
vict should  escape  or  attempt  to  escape,  or  mutiny  or  incite 
mutiny,  or  the  like,  he  should  be  tried  in  a  certain  court  on 
information  by  the  warden,  and,  if  found  guilty,  should  lose 
the  benefit  of  all  time  served  on  his  sentence  and  should  be 
re-sentenced  for  the  full  original  term,  was  held  not  to  be 
within  such  a  title.51  An  act  was  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide 
for  the  maintenance,  government  and  police  of  the  peniten- 
tiary." It  was  held  that  a  provision  that,  where  persons  are 
hereafter  convicted  and  punished  by  imprisonment,  it  shall 

•i6  Brown  v.  State,  115  Ala.  74,  22  different  subject  from  that  of  his 

So.  458.  management  during  the  existence 

47  White  v.  Burgin,  113  Ala.  170,  of  the  sentence.  ...  If  this 
21  So.  832.  But  a  title  "  to  create  section  is  germane  to  the  title,  it 
anew  convict  S3'stem  for  the  state"  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  leg- 
was  held  sufficient  to  cover  the  islature  might  have  proceeded  in 
provision  in  question.  the  act  to  legislate   generally  on 

48  Ex  parte  Gayles,  108  Ala.  514,  the  subject  of  the  punishment  of 
19  So.  12.  The  court  says:  "Here,  criminals  convicted  of  crime  and 
as  we  plainly  see,  we  are  carried  abolished  capital  punishment,  es- 
back  from  where  hard  labor  and  tablished  a  whipping  post  and 
the  management  of  theconvictset  revised  largely  the  criminal  statutes 
in,  which  is  the  subject  of  this  en-  of  the  state."     p.  516. 

actment,  as  indicated  in  its  title,  49  State  v.  Holcomb,  46  Neb.  612, 

to  a  point  after  conviction  and  be-  65  N.  W.  873. 

fore  sentence,  by  virtue  of  which  60  People  v.    Huntley,  112  Mich. 

sentence  alone,  the  convict  is  sub-  569,  71  N.  W.  178. 

ject  to  the  management  provided  51  State  v.  Lewin,  53  Kan.  679,  37 

for  in  the  act,  his  conviction  and  Pac.  168. 

sentence  being  quite  another  and 


liii. i :  OF   acts. 

d  the  penitentiary,  if  it  exceeds  six  months,  was  not  within 
the  title.88    An  act  to  provide  for  the  organization  and  man- 
ment  of  a  state  reform  school  may  embraoe  provisions 
the  committing  of  children  thereto  by  the  various  courts." 
:  l<>«>.  Miscellaneous  cases  in  which  acts  were  held  to 
conform  to  the  constitution  as  to  title.— An  act  provid- 
er the  sale  of  school   lands   may   define   the  rights 
acquired  by  a  purchaser.84    So  a  grant  of  lands  in  aid  of  a 
public  improvement  may  contain  a  provision  exempting  the 
land  from  taxation  for  a  limited  time.55     An  act  in  relation 
to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  vinegar  may  provide  against 
adulteration  and  deception  in  sale.56     An  act  to  regulate  the 
practice  of  medicine  may  include  surgery,  obstetrics,  oste- 
opathy and  christian  science.57     An  act  to  enable  park  com- 
missioners to  make  local  improvements  may  authorize  the 
levy  of  a  new  assessment  to  pay  for  an  improvement  pre- 
viously completed.88     An  act  to  regulate  the  foreclosure  of 
chattel  mortgages  on  household  goods  provided  that  no  chat- 
tel mortgage  executed  by  a  married  man  or  woman  on  house- 
hold foods  should  be  valid  unless  both  husband  and  wife 
joined  in  its  execution.     The  provision  was  held  valid  on  the 
ground  that  whatever  related  to  the  validity  of  the  mortgage 
to  be  foreclosed  was  germane.5"     An   act  to  regulate  the 
recording  of  title  notes  or  evidences  of  conditional  sales  may 

rooks  v.  People,  14  Colo.  413,  55  Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Audi- 

24  Par.  553.  tor-General,  68  Mich.  408,  32  N.  W. 

53  In  re  Sanders,  53  Kan.  191,  36  657. 

Pac.  343,  23  L.  P.  A.  603.  5b  People  v.  Worden  Grocery  Co., 

5*  Prescott  v.  Beebe,  17  Kan.  320.  118  Mich.  604,  77  N.  W.  315. 

It  was  held  in  Swayzev.  Britton,  17  57  Little  v.  State,  60  Neb.  749,  84 

Kan.  625,  that  an  act  "concerning  N.  W.  257;  State  v.  Buswell,  40  Neb. 

tariea   public"   was    not    broad  158,  57  N.  W.  1019. 

agh  to  include  a  provision  au-  58  West  Chicago  Park  Cora'rs  v. 

t  liorizingnotaries  public  protesting  Sweet,   167  111.  326,  47   N.  E.  728; 

ercial   paper  to  give  notice  West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  v.  Far- 

thereof  to  parties  secondarily  lia-  ber,  171  III.  HO.  49  N.  E.  427. 

This  conclusion    cannot    be  69  Gaines  v.  Williams,  146  111.  450, 

aciled  with   the  rule  of  con-  34  N.  E.  934;  Flynn  v.  Coakley,  164 

Btraction  generally  adopted.  111.  470,  15  N.  E.  1070. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  299' 

provide  that  such  writings  shall  be  void  if  not  recorded/'0 
In  "An  act  relating  to  libel  and  its  punishment,"  a  provision 
abolishing  punitive  damages  in  civil  actions  for  libel  was 
held  germane.61  "  An  act  granting  to  the  city  of  Mobile  the 
riparian  rights  of  the  river  front"  was  held  sufficient  to 
cover  the  grant  of  the  fee  of  the  river  front.62  An  act  to 
amend  an  article  of  the  code  entitled  "  Oysters  "  may  require 
persons  engaged  in  packing  oysters  to  pay  a  license.63  An 
act  to  provide  for  the  organization,  regulation  and  inspec- 
tion of  building  and  loan  associations,  and  to  repeal  the 
former  law  on  the  subject,  forbade  any  building  and  loan 
association  to  do  business  in  the  state  without  complying 
with  the  act,  provided  "  that,  except  as  to  taxation,  this  act 
shall  not  affect  any  such  association  heretofore  organized 
under  the  laws  of  the  state  of  Montana,  unless  it  elects  to 
come  under  its  provisions."  The  proviso  was  held  to  be 
within  the  title.64  An  act  to  provide  for  the  manner  of 
selecting  the  police  force  of  the  city  of  Birmingham,  in 
reality  related  to  the  constitution  and  election  of  the  board 
of  police  commissioners,  who  appointed  the  policemen.  The 
act  was  held  within  the  title,  because  it  related  to  the  man- 
ner of  selecting  the  police  force  by  dealing  with  the  instru- 
mentality of  their  selection.65  A  title  was  held  not  to  be 
bad  for  the  mere  reason  that  it  described  a  repealed  act.66 

^Numerous  additional  cases  are  cited  in  the  margin  in 
which  the  acts  or  provisions  in  question  were  held  within 
the  title  of  the  respective  acts.67    These  cases  are  referred 

60  Otto  Gas  Engine  Works  v.  Hare,  65  State  v.  McCary,  128  Ala.  139,. 

64  Kan.  78,  67  Pac.  441.  30  So.  641. 

61Goebeler  v.   WilheJm,    17  Pa.  66  Reynolds  v.  Board  of  Education, 

Supr.  Ct.  432.  66  Kan.  672,  72  Pac,  274. 

62  Mobile  Transportation  Co.  v.  67  Alabama:  Dean  v.  State,  100 
Mobile,  128  Ala.  335,  30  So.  645,  86  Ala.  102.  14  So.  762;  State  v.  Rog- 
Am.  St.  Rep.  143.  ers.  107  Ala. 444, 19 So.  909;  Daugh- 

63  State  v.  Applegarth,  81  Md.  293,  drill  v.  State,  113  Ala.  7,  21  So.  378; 
31  Atl.  961,  28  L.  R.  A.  812.  State  v.  Stripling,  113  Ala.  120,  21 

64  Home  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Nolan,  So.  409;  Ex  parte  Mayor,  116  Ala. 
21  Mont.  205,  53  Pac.  738.  186,  22  So.   454;  State  v.  Winter, 


1 1 1  ii   >n    \i  rs. 


to  in  the  hope  that  those  of  each  Btate  may  be  of  some  use 
to  the  practitioners  of  that  state. 


us  Ala  1,34  So  v'.':  Lewis  v.  State, 

\l.i.  SI.  26  So.  516;  Williams  v. 

i  oi  Revenue,  \-:-<  Ala  183,  26 

State  v.   Crook,  1:20  ala 

745;  Sheppard  v.  Dow- 

ling,  127  ala  1,28  So  791,  85  Am. 

St  i:.  p.  68;  Ellia  v.  Miller,186  Ala 

California:  Ex  parte  Kohler,  74 

Cal.  88,  1 5  Pac.  436;  People  v.  Dunn, 

il.  211,  22  Pac.  140,  13  Am.  St. 

118;  Pennie  v.  State.  80  Cal. 

:  Pac.  176;  People  v.  Superior 

Ct,  LOO  CaL  105,34  Pac.  492;  Junes 

v.  Falvella,  126  CaL  24,58  Pac.  311; 

Los  Angeles  County  v.  Spencer,  126 

Cal.    670,  .V    Pac.    202,  77   Am.  St. 

Rep.  217;   People  v.  King,  127  Cal. 

:.7u.   ■  15;  People  v.  Linda 

Vista   Irr.    Dist,    128  Cal.   477,  61 

Pac.  86;    Carpenter  v.  Furry,  128 

Cal.  665.  61  Pac.  309;  People  v.  Mul- 

lender,  132   Cal.  217,  64  Pac.  299; 

le  v.  Cobb,  133  Cal.  74,  65  Pac 

Jackson  v.  Baebr,  138  CaL  266, 

71  Pac.  107. 

Colorado:  Stockman  v.  Brooks, 

17   Colo.  248,  -".)    Pac  746;  Airy  v. 

People,  21   Colo.  144,  40  Pac.  362; 

;ilo  v.  People,  26  Colo.  3.-).",.  58 

Pac.  678;  Liggett  v.  People,  26  Colo. 

58  Pac.  1 11:  Lamar  Canal  Co. 

v.  Amity  Land  &  Irr.  Co.,  26  Colo. 

58    Pa'-.   000,77   Am.   St.  Rep 

Bferwin  v.  County  Com'rs,  29 

Colo.  169,67  Pac  285;  Mollie  Gib- 

ML  &   M.   Co.    v.  Sharp.  5 

Colo,  apj  "18. 

Florida:  Holton  v.  State,  28  Fla. 
-  .   716;  Smith  v.  State,  29 
,10Sa  594, 

.  Spier  v.  Morgan,  80  Ga. 


581,  5  s.  E.  768;  Macon  &  Birming- 
ham R,  lv.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga  1, 
11  S.  E.  442,  21  Am.  St.  Rep  185; 
Columbus  Southern  Ry,  Co.  v. 
Wright,  89  Ga  574,  15  S.  E.  293; 
Butler  v.  State.  89  Ga.  821,  15  S.  E. 
To:;;  Silvey  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  94 
Ga.  609,  21  S.  E.  607;  Carson  v. 
Mayor.  94  Ga.  617,  20  S.  E.  116; 
McCommons  v.  English,  100  Ga. 
653,  28  S.  E.  386;  Brand  v.  Law- 
renceville,  104  Ga  486,  30  S.  E.  954; 
Cunningham  v.  Griffin,  107  Ga 
690,  33  S.  E.  664;  Murray  v.  State, 
112  Ga  7,  37  S.  E.  Ill ;  Wei  borne  v. 
State,  114  Ga  793,  40  S.  E.  857; 
Hirsch  v.  Brunswick,  114  Ga.  776, 
40  S.  E.  786. 

Illinois:  Danville  v.  Danville  W. 
W.  Co.,  180  111.  235,  54  N.  E.  221; 
Boehm  v.  Hertz,  182  111.  154,  54  N. 
E.  973,  48  L.  R.  A.  575;  Arms  v. 
Ayer,  192  111.  601,  61  N.  E.  851,  85 
Am.  St.  Rep.  357;  In  re  St.  Louis 
Loan  &  Invest.  Co.,  194  111.  00'J,  62 
N.  E.  810. 

Indiana:  Rushville  Gas  Co.  v. 
Rushville.  121  Ind.  206,  23  N.  E.  72, 
16  Am.  St.  Rep.  388;  State  v.  Kol- 
sem,  130  Ind.  434.  29  N.  E.  505,  14 
L.  R.  A.  500:  Smith  v.  McClain,  146 
Ind.  77,  45  N.  E.  41;  Chicago  & 
Eastern  III.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State.  153 
Ind.  134,  51  N.  E.  924;  Gustavel  v. 
State,  153  Ind.  613,  54  N.  E.  123; 
Burget  v.  Merritt,  155  Ind.  14:;.  57 
N.  E.  711;  Parks  v.  State,  159  Ind. 
211,  64  N.  E.  862. 

Iowa:  Guaranty  Savings  &  L. 
Ass'n  v.  Ascherman,  108  Iowa,  150, 
7^  N.  W.  82& 

Kansas:    Barber  Co.   Com'rs    v. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


301 


§  170.  Miscellaneous  cases  in  which  acts  were  held  not 
to  conform  to  the  constitution  as  to  title. —  Where  the 
title  of  an  act  indicated  a  general  law  and  the  body  of  the 


Smith,  48  Kan.  331,  29  Pac.  559, 
565;  State  v.  Campbell,  50  Kan. 
433,  32  Pac.  35;  Blaker  v.  Hood,  53 
Kan.  499,  36  Pac.  1115,  24  L.  R.  A. 
854;  Eudora  v.  Darling,  54  Kan. 
654.  39  Pac.  184;  Lynch  v.  Chase, 
55  Kan.  367,  40  Pac.  666;  Aikman 
v.  Edwards,  55  Kan.  751,  42  Pac. 
366,  30  L.  R.  A.  149;  State  v.  Shep- 
ard,  64  Kan.  451,  67  Pac.  870;  State 
v.  Wilcox,  64  Kan.  789,  68  Pac.  662; 
State  v.  Dunn,  66  Kan.  483,71  Pac. 
811;  Higgins  v.  Mitchell  Co.,  6 
Kan.  x\pp.  314,51  Pac.  72;  Inlow  v. 
Graham  Co.,  6  Kan.  App.  391,  51 
Pac.  65;  State  v.  Haun,7  Kan.  App. 
509,  54  Pac.  130;  Ireton  v.  Lonbuer, 
9  Kan.  App.  561,  58  Pac.  278. 

Kentucky:  Commonwealth  v. 
Godshow,  92  Ky.  435,  17  S.  W.  737; 
Van  Meter  v.  Spurrier,  94  Ky.  22, 
21  S.  W.  337;  White  v.  Common- 
wealth. 20  Ky.  L.  R.  1942,  50  S.  W. 
678;  Raubold  v.  Commonwealth,  21 
Ky.  L.  R.  1125,  54  S.  W.  17;  Murphy 
v.  Louisville,  24  Ky.  L.  R.  1574,  71 
S.  W.  34;  Weber  v.  Commonwealth, 
24  Ky.  L.  R.  1726,  72  S.  W.  30;  Com- 
monwealth v.  MeConnell,  25  Ky. 
L.  R.  52;  Huyser  v.  Common- 
wealth, 25  Ky.  L.  R.  608. 

Louisiana:  Conery  v.  New  Or- 
leans W.  W.  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  910, 
7  So.  8;  Lucky  v.  Police  Jury,  46 
La.  Ann.  679,  15  So.  89;  State  v. 
People's  Slaughter  House,  etc.  Co., 
46  La.  Ann.  1031.  15  So.  408; 
McKeon  v.  Sumner  Building  Sup- 
ply Co.,  51  La.  Ann.  1961,  26  So. 
430;  State  v.  Lee,  106  La.  400,  31 
So.  14. 


Maryland:  Ellicott  Machine  Co. 
v.  Speed,  72  Md.  22,  18  Atl.  863; 
Gans  v.  Carter,  77  Md.  1,  25  Atl. 
663;  Bond  v.  State,  78  Md.  523,  28 
Atl.  407;  Hamilton  v.  Carroll,  82 
Md.  326,  33  Atl.  648;  Phinney  v. 
Sheppard,  etc.  Hospital,  88  Md.  633, 
42  Atl.  58. 

Michigan:  Feek  v.  Township 
Board,  82  Mich.  393,  47  N.  W.  37, 
10  L.  R  A.  69;  Hall  v.  Burlingame. 
88  Mich.  438.  50  N.  W.  289:  Frary  v. 
Allen,  91  Mich.  666,  52  N.  W.  78; 
Van  Husan  v.  Hearnes,  96  Mich. 
504,  56  N.  W.  22;  Toll  v.  Jerome, 
101  Mich.  468.  59  N.  W.  816;  Grand 
Rapids  v.  Burlingame,  102  Mich. 
321,  60  N.  W.  698;  Rice  v.  Hosking, 
105  Mich.  303,  63  N.  W.  311,  55  Am. 
St.  Rep.  448;  Barnard  v.  McLeod, 
114  Mich.  73,  72  N.  W.  24;  Jackson 
v.  Jackson  Co.,  117  Mich.  305,  75  N. 
W.  617;  Sunderlin  v.  Board  of 
Sup'rs,  119  Mich.  535,  78  N.  W.  651; 
Board  of  State  Tax  Com'rs  v. 
Board  of  Assessors,  124  Mich.  491, 
83  N.  W.  209;  Chipman  v.  Wayne 
Co.  Auditors,  127  Mich.  490,  86  N. 
W.  1024;  Jackson  &  Suburban 
Traction  Co.  v.  Commissioner  of 
R.  R,  128  Mich.  164,  87  N.  W.  133; 
Shearer  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs,  128 
Mich.  552.  87  N.  W.  789. 

Minnesota:  Stolz  v.  Thompson, 
44  Minn.  271,  46  N.  W.  410;  State  v. 
Bigelow,  52  Minn.  307,  54  N.  W.  95; 
Willis  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  50  Minn. 
290,  52  N.  W.  652;  Kelly  v.  Minne- 
apolis City,  57  Minn.  294,  59  N.  W. 
304,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  605,  26  L.  R. 
A.  92;   Lyuott  v.   Dickerman,   65 


TITLE    OF     \ii>. 


act,  though  in  form  general,  was  so  qualified  and  limited  that 
it  could  apply  to  only  one  county,  and  was  therefore  local,  the 
title  was  held  to  be  misleading  and  the  act  void.68    Under  a 

Minn.  471.  07  X.  W.  1 1 18;  Fleokten  958,  961 :  Nebraska  L.  &  B.  Ass'n  v. 

v.  Lambert  on,  69   Minn.  187,  72   N.  Perkins,  61   Neb.  254,  85  N.  W.  67; 

Anderson   v.  Seymour,  70  State  v,  Aitken,  62  Neb.  428,  87  N. 

Minn.    858,  73   N.  W.  171:    Slat.-    v.  W.  L58. 

Phillips,  78    Minn.    77.   7.~>    N.    W.  Nevada:  State  v.  Ruhe,  24  Nev. 

Win.  DeeringCo.  v. Peterson,  251,  52  Pao.  '-'74. 

.:.  Minn.  lis.  77  N.  W.  568;  <  >'Brien  New  Jersey:  Mortland  v.  State.  52 

..   St.  Croix    Boom    Co.,  75   Minn.  N.  J.  L.  521,  20  Atl.  073;  State  v. 

348.  77    N.  W.   991;  State    v.  AYest  Cherry,  53  N.  J.  L,  173,  20  Atl.  825; 

Duluth   Land  Co.,  75  Minn.  456,  71  State  v.  Wescott,  55  N.  J.  L.  78,  25 

N.  \V.   1115:    Benz   v.  St.   Paul,  77  Atl.  269;  State  v.  Crusins.  57  N.  J. 

Minn.  375,  82  N.  W.  1118;  McCollis-  L.  279,31  Atl.  235;  Board  of  Educa- 

tet    v.  lasliop,  78   Minn.   2.8,80  N.  tion  v.   ClitTside  Park,  63  N.  J.   L. 

W.  11'-.  371,  43  Atl.  722;  Cooper  v.  Springer, 

Missouri:  State   v.   Hughes,  104  05  N.  J.  L.  594,  48  Atl.  605;  State  v. 

Ma  459,  16  S.  W.  489;  State  v.  Or-  Diamond  Mills  Paper  Co.,  63  N.  J. 

.  106  Mo.  Ill,  17  S.  W.  170.  32');  Eq.  111.  51  Atl.  1019. 

state   v.  Kingsley,  108  Mo.  135,  13  New  York:  People  v.  Fitch,  117 

s.    W.    991;    Ward    v.    Board    of  N.  Y.  355, 41  N.  E.  695;  Perkins  v. 

Equalization,  135  Mo.  309.  36  S.  W.  Heeit.  158  N.  Y.  306,  53  N.  E.  18,  70 

v.  Bockstruck,  136   Mo.  Am.  St.  Pep.  483,  43  L.  R.  A.  858; 

W.  317;   State  v.    Fire-  People  v.  Coler,  173  N.  Y  103,  65 

men's  Fund  Ins.  Co.,  152  Mo.  1,  52  N.  E.  950;  AYronghtlron  Bridge  Co. 


S.  W.  595:  State  v.  Mason,  155    Mo. 

55  S.  W.  636;  Slate  v.  Beugsch, 

to.  Bl,  70  S.  W.  710;   Elting   v. 

Eiokman,  172  Mo.  237.  72  S.  W.  700. 

Montana:  Jobb   v.  Meagher  Co., 

Lt  421.  51  Par.  1031. 

Nebraska:    Singer    Mfg.   Co.  v. 


v.  Attica,  49  Hun,  513,  2  N.  Y.  S. 
359;  Fort  v.  Cummins,  90  Hun.  481, 
36  N.  Y.  S.  36;  Dunton  v.  Hume, 
15  A  pp.  Div.  122,  44  N.  Y.  S.  305; 
Potter  v.  Col  lis,  19  App.  Div.  392, 
46  N.  Y  S.  471;  Matter  of  Buffalo 
Traction  Co..  25  App.  Div.  447,  49 


Fleming.  39  Neb.  079.  58  X.  W.  226,  N.  Y  S.  1052;    Matter  of  Clinton 

12    Am.   St.   Rep.   613;    Bishop  v.  Ave.,  57  App.  Div.  166,  68  N.  Y  S. 

Middleton,  43  Neb.  10,  01  N.  \V.  129,  190;  People  v.  Kent,  83  App.  Div. 

.■•;  L   l:  .A.  .  Nierle,  554,  82  N.  Y  S.  172;  People  v.  Web- 


15  Neb  105,  63  N.  W.  882;  State  v. 
Moore,  is  Neb.  870,  07  N.  W.  870; 
State  v.  Stuht.  52  Neb.  209,  71  N. 
W.  941:  Bryant  v.  Dakota  Co.,  5  I 
7  1  N.  W.  818;  Boward  v. 
54  Neb,   1 13,  74  N.  W. 


ster,  8  Misc.  133,  28  N.  Y  S.  646. 

North  Dakota:  State  v.  Haas.  2 
N.  D.  202,  50  N.  W.  254;  State  v. 
Barnes,  3  N.  D.  319,  55  N.  W.  883; 
Tribune  Print.  &  Binding  Co.  v. 
Barnes,  7  N.  D.   591,  75  N.  W.  904; 


r  v.  Milwaukee  County,  112  Wia  601,  88  N.  W.  577. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


30^ 


title  "to  regulate  the  fine  and  forfeiture  fund  of  Elmore 
county,"  a  provision  appropriating  money  from  the  general 
fund  of  the  county  to  the  fine  and  forfeiture  fund  of  the 


Power  v.  Kitching,  10  N.  D.  254,  86 
N.  W.  737. 

Oregon:  State  v.  Dupuis,  18  Ore. 
372,  23  Pac.  255;  Simon  v.  Northup, 
27  Ore.  487,  40  Pac.  560;  Ex  parte 
Mon  Luck,  29  Ore.  421,  44  Pac.  693, 
54  Am.  St.  Rep.  804,  32  L.  R.  A.  738; 
Spaulding  Logging  Co.  v.  Inde- 
pendence Imp.  Co.,  42  Ora  394,  71 
Pac.  132. 

Pennsylvania:  Nason  v.  Poor  Di- 
rectors, 126  Pa.  St.  445,  17  Atl.  616; 
Commonwealth  v.  Sellers,  130  Pa. 
St.  32,  18  Atl.  542;  Bradley  v.  Pitts- 
burgh, 130  Pa.  St.  475,  18  Atl.  730; 
Clearfield  Co.  v.  Cameron  Tp.,  135 
Pa.  St.  86,  19  Atl.  952:  Common- 
wealth v.  Wyman,  137  Pa.  St.  508, 
21  Atl.  389;  Commonwealth  v. 
Morningstar,  144  Pa.  St.  103,22  Atl. 
867;  De  Walt  v.  Bartley,  146  Pa. 
St.  529,  24  Atl.  185,  28  Am.  St.  Rep. 
814,  15  L.  R.  A.  771;  Donley  v.  Pitts- 
burg, 147  Pa.  St.  348,  23  Atl.  394,  30 
Am.  St.  Rep.  738;  Kelley  v.  May- 
berry,  154  Pa.  St.  440,  26  Atl.  595; 
Commonwealth  v.  Railway  Co.,  162 
Pa.  St.  614,  29  Atl.  696;  Bruce  v. 
Pittsburg,  166  Pa.  St.  152,  30  Atl. 
831;  Gackenbach  v.  Lehigh  Co., 
166  Pa.  St.  418,  31  Atl.  142;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Keystone  Benefit 
Ass'n,  171  Pa.  St.  465,  32  Atl.  1027; 
Grubbs'  Appeal,  174  Pa.  St.  187,  34 
Atl.  573;  Commonwealth  v.  Mor- 
gan, 178  Pa.  St.  198,  35  Atl.  589; 
Commonwealth  v.  Lloyd,  178  Pa. 
St.  308,  35  Atl.  816;  Commonwealth 
v.  Muir,  180  Pa.  St.  47,  36  Atl.  413; 
Dorrance  v.  Dorranceton,  181  Pa. 
St.  164,  37  Atl.  200;  Otto  Tp.  Road, 


181  Pa.  St.  390,  37  Atl.  514;  Page  v. 
Williamsport  Suspender  Co.,  191 
Pa,  St.  511,  43  Atl.  345;  In  re  Regis- 
tration of  Campbell,  197  Pa.  St.  581, 
47  Atl.  860;  Merritt  v.  Whitlock, 
200  Pa.  St.  50,  49  Atl.  786;  New 
Brighton  v.  Biddell,  201  Pa.  St.  96, 
50  Atl.  989;  Hood  v.  Norton,  202 
Pa.  St.  114,  51  Atl.  748;  Rose  Hill 
Iron  &  C.  Co.  v.  Fulton  Co.,  204  Pa. 
St.  44,  53  Atl.  530;  Franklin  v. 
Hancock,  204  Pa.  St.  110,  53  Atl 
644;  Rose  v.  Beaver  Co.,  204  Pa. 
St.  372,  54  Atl.  263;  Hoff  v.  Person, 

1  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  357;  Otto  Tp.  Road, 

2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  20;  Commonwealth 
v.  Lloyd,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  6;  Wilson 
v.  Downing,  4  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  487; 
Pittsburgh  v.  Daly,  5  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 
528;  Shenk  v.  McKennon,  11  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  84;  Baker  v.  Warren  Co., 
11  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  170;  Middletown 
Road,  15  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  167;  Common- 
wealth v.  Hanley,  15  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 
271;  Franklin  v.  Hancock,  18  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  398;  Commonwealth  v. 
Mintz,  19  Pa  Supr.  Ct.  283;  Phila- 
delphia v.  Pepper,  18  Phila.  419; 
Sanderson  v.  Com'rs,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
342;  Commonwealth  v.  Baum,  28 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  332;  Pittsburgh  v.  Ken- 
nedy, 12  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  247. 

South  Carolina:  Ex  parte  Bacot, 
36  S.  C.  125, 15  S.  E.  204,  16  L,  R  A. 
586. 

South  Dakota:  State  v.  Ayers,  8 
S.  D.  517,  67  N.  W.  611;  Miles  v. 
Benton  Tp.,  11  S.  D.  450,  78  N.  W- 
1004. 

Tennessee:  Cole  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Falls, 
90  Tenn.  466,  16  S.  W.  1045;  Mc- 


MM   I      OF     ACTS. 


county  was  held  without  the  title.69  An  act  was  entitled 
"An  act  to  authorize  the  drainage  of  marsh  land."  It-  cre- 
ated certain  persons  a  corporation  with  the  usual  powers, 
provided  for  its  stock,  management,  etc,  gave  it  power  to 

drain  and  reclaim  any  or  all  of  the  wet  or  overflowed 
lands  or  tide-water  marshes  on  or  adjacent  to  Staten  Island 
or  Long  Island,  except  within  cities,  granted  to  the  corpo- 
ration the  title  to  all  such  lands  when  surveyed  on  payment 
of  a  price  to  he  fixed,  and  gave  it  power  to  condemn  and 
.  ss  as  benefits.  It  was  held  that  the  subject  was  not  ex- 
sed  in  the  title  and  that  the  act  was  void.70  An  act  "to 
protect  fruit  trees,  hedge  plants  and  fences,"  simply  author- 
ized the  payment  of  a  bounty  for  gopher  scalps.  It  was 
held  that  the  subject  of  the  act  was  not  expressed,  though 
the  destruction  of  gophers  might  protect  trees.71  An  act  "to 


Elwee  v.   McEhvee,  07  Tenn.   649, 

37  S.   W.  5(50;   Kennedy  v.   Mont- 

ry   County,  98  Tenn.   165,  38 

S.  V.'.  1075;  State  v.  McMinnville, 

Cenn,  384,  61  S.  W.  785;  Carroll 

v.  Alsup,  107  Tenn.   257,64  S.  W. 

Phillips    v.    Lewis,   3    Tenn. 

.  -'30. 

us:  Brown  v.  State,  32  Tex. 
Trim.  Rep.  119,  22  S.  W.  596;  Jame- 
son v.  State.  32  Tex.  Crim.  Rep. 
i  S.  \V.  508;  Ex  parte  Segars, 
.      rim.  Rep.  553,  25  S.  W.  26. 
Virginia:  Morris  v.  Va.  Ins.  Co., 
a.  588,  8  S.  E.  383;  Prison  Ass'n 
v.  Ashby,  113  Va.  667.  25  S.  E.  893. 
Washington:  Jolliffe  v.  Brown, 
11  Wash.  155,  44  Pac.   149,53  Am. 
St  1;  -winburn  v.  Mills,  17 

Wash,  till,  50  Pao.  4*9,  01  Am.  St 
■:    Tacoma    Land    Co.    v. 
Yountr.  18  Wash  495,  52  Pac  244; 
ton    v.  Wood,  19  Wash.   441, 
5     Pac.  7<>7;  Lewis  County  v.  Gor- 
20  Wash  B0,  54  Par.  779;  Mer- 
ritt  v.  Corey,  22  Wash.  444,  61  Pac. 


171:  ('.rant  v.  Cole,  23  Wash.  542, 
63  Pac.  203. 

Wisconsin:  Julien  v.  Model  B.  L. 
&  I.  Ass'n.  11G  Wis.  79.92  N.  W.  5   1 

Wyoming:  Farm  Invest.  Co.  v. 
Carpenter,  9  Wyo.  110.  61  Pac.  258, 
87  Am.  St.  Rep.  918.  50  L.  R.  A.  74  7. 

I ' nili  d States:  KnightsTemplars 
&  Masons'  Life  Indem.  Co.  v.  Jar- 
man,  187  U.  S.  197,  23  S.  C.  Rep.  108; 
Morgan  v.  Des  Moines,  54  Fed.  456; 
Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Oswego,  59 
Fed.  58,  7  C.  C.  A.  669. 19  U.  S.  App. 
321;  Preston  v.  Finley,  72  Fed.  850: 
Roberts  v.  Brooks,  78  Fed.  411,  24 
C.  C.  A.  158;  Picken  v.  Post,  99 
Fed.  659,  41  C.  C.  A.  1. 

6H  Sanders  v.  Court  of  County 
Com'rs,  117  Ala.  543,  23  So.  788; 
Pierce  v.  Court  of  County  Com'rs, 
117  Ala.  569,  23  So.  790. 

w  Coxe  v.  State,  144  N.  Y.  396,  39 
N.  E.  400. 

71  Clark  v.  Wallace  Co.  Com'rs, 
54  Kan.  634,  39  Pac.  225. 


TITLE    OF    ACTS.  305 

require  the  payment  of  a  poll  tax  by  all  legal  voters  under 
sixty  years  of  age,"  provided  that  the  name  of  no  person 
should  be  registered  as  a  voter  unless  he  should  exhibit  a 
receipt  for  the  poll  tax  required  by  law  for  the  current  and 
preceding  year.  It  was  held  that  the  object  of  the  act  was, 
not  to  require  the  payment  of  a  poll  tax,  but  to  make  its 
payment  a  condition  of  the  right  to  vote,  and  that  the  real 
subject  was  not  expressed  in  the  title.72  An  act  to  provide 
for  the  formation  and  government  of  sanitary  districts  pro- 
vided that  the  sanitary  trustees  might  determine  the  quali- 
fication of  persons  authorized  to  sell  liquor  at  retail  and  that 
no  license  to  sell  liquor  in  the  district  should  be  effective 
until  approved  by  the  sanitary  board.  This  was  held  to  be 
foreign  to  the  title.73  An  act  to  create  a  fireman's  pension 
fund  in  cities  having  paid  fire  departments  provided  for  the 
fund  by  requiring  foreign  insurance  companies  to  pay  one 
dollar  on  every  hundred  dollars  of  the  excess  of  their  re- 
ceipts over  losses  paid.  The  act  was  held  void  because  the 
title  gave  no  intimation  of  how  the  fund  was  to  be  created.7* 
A  few  additional  cases  are  cited  in  the  margin  wherein 
acts  or  provisions  were  held  void  because  not  within  the 
title.75 

72  State  v.  Stone,  24  Nev.  308,  53  the  title  would  be  as  misleading, 
Pac.  497.  and  might  be  as  pernicious,  as  the 

73  In  re  Werner,  129  Cal.  567,62  evils  sought  to  be  obstructed  (obvi- 
Pac.  97.  ated)  by  the  constitution.  The  sub- 

74  Henderson  v.  London  &  L.  Ins.  ject  of  this  act,  as  we  have  indi- 
Co.,  135  Ind.  23,  34  N.  E.  565,  41  cated,  is  to  gather  funds  from 
Am.  St.  Rep.  410,  20  L.  R.  A.  827.  foreign  insurance  companies,  and 
The  court  says:  '"Titles should  dis-  to  dispose  of  such  funds  for  the  re- 
tinctly  recite  what  the  particular  lief  of  firemen.  The  title  expresses 
subject  of  the  law  is.'  This  may  the  first  of  these  objects  included 
often  be  done  by  language  quite  within  the  subject,  but  wholly 
general;  then,  again,  there  are  in-  omits  the  other  of  such  objects."' 
stances  which  require  particular-  p.  81. 

ity.     If  the  subject  is  composed  of  75  Yerby  v.  Cochrane,  101  Ala.  541, 

two  or  more  essential  elements,  the  14  So.  355;  Spier  v.  Buker,  120  Cal. 

expression  of  one  of  such  elements  370,  52  Pac.  659,  41  L.  R.  A.  196; 

in  the  title  would  not  suffice.   The  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Co  >ledge, 

absence  of  one  of  such  elements  in  86  Ga.  104,  12  S.  E.  264;  Woodruff 
20 


11 1  LE    OF    A.OTS. 


171.  Miscellaneous  points  :is  <o  titles. —  A  provision 
for  submitting  an  act  or  any  question  on  which  its  opera- 
tion depends  to  a  popular  vote  is  germane  to  the  subject  or 

I  ct'  snob  act,  ami  is  a  means  to  facilitate  its  execution.78 
Where  the  title  is  to  repeal  an  act.  giving  its  title,  it  need 
do<  give  the  date  of  passage  or  approval  of  the  act  to  be 
repealed.71  Where  the  title  is  to  repeal  a  certain  section, 
ami  the  act  repeals  ami  re-enacts  the  section,  it  is  void.78 
Repeals  by  implication  need  not  be  indicated  in  the  title.79 
Where  the  question  was  not  raised  in  the  lower  court  nor 
in  the  briefs,  the  supreme  court  refused  to  consider  it.80 
Where  an  act,  section  or  provision  is  void  because  not  within 
the  title,  and  such  act,  section  or  provision  is  afterwards  in- 
corporated in  a  code  or  revision,  and  the  code  or  revision  is 
duly  passed    under   an   appropriate  general  title,  such  ait, 

on  or  provision  will  1>>-  valid  from  the  passage  of  the 
code  or  revision.81     So  when  a  territorial  act  is  approved 


v.  KVllyville  Coal  Co.,  182  111.  480. 
55  N.  E.  550;  Garrigus  v.  Board  of 
Coni'rs.  157  Ind.  103,  60  N.  K.  948; 
State  v.  (ioff,  106  La.  270,  30  So. 
844;  Scharf  v.  Talker,  73  MA  378, 
•-J1  Atl.  "jtj;  East  Jordan  Lumber 
Co.  v.  East  Jordan,  100  Mich.  201, 
58  N.  W.  1012;  State  v.  Oftedal,  72 
Minn.  408,  75  N.  W.  692;  Sheasley 
v.  Keens,  48  Neb.  57.  66  N.  W.  1010; 
Treasurer  of  Plainfield  v.  Hall.  61 
X.  J.  L.  437,  39  Atl.  711;  Brown's 
Estate,  152  Pa  St.  401.  25  Atl.  030; 
Perkins  v.  Philadelphia,  156  Pa.  St. 
17  Atl.  350;  Perkins  v.  Phila- 
delphia, 150  Pa  St.  551,  27  Atl.  356; 
Mansfield's  Case,  22  Pa,  Supr.  Ct. 

Commonwealth  v.  Farley,  19 
Phila.  561;  Gassett  v.  State.  2Tenn. 
<!,.  510;  State  v.  Bethel,  3  Tenn. 
Ch.    107;    Case   v.   Loftus.    13   Fed. 

Bank  v,  Divine  Crocery  Co., 
'.'7  Tenn.  603,  87  8.  W.  390;  Luman 
v.  Hitchens  Bros.  Co.,  90  Md    14,  44 


Atl.  1051,  46  L.  R.  A.  393;  Kelly  v. 
Pratt,  14  Misc.  31,  83  N.  Y.  S.  636; 
Potter  County  Water  Co.  v.  Aus- 
tin, 206  Pa.  St.  297;  Burks 
County  Prison  Board,  28  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
65;  Smith's  Petition,  12  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct,  333. 

W  City  of  Virden  v.  Allan,  107  111. 
505;  Caldwell  v.  Barrett,  73  Ga.  604; 
Simpson  v.  Bailey,  3  Ore.  515;  Unity 
v.  Burrage,  103  U.  S.  447,  26  L.  Ed. 
405;  Stuart  v.  Kirley,  12  S.  D.  245, 81 
N.  W.  117. 

"  Moore  v.  Burdett,  62  N.  J.  L. 
163,  40  Atl.  631. 

■~  State  v.  Benzinger,  83  Md.  481, 
35  Atl.  173. 

"Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Trumbull, 
137  111.  146,  27  N.  E.  24. 

8U  North  River  Boom  Co. v.  Smith, 
15  Wash.  138.  45  Pac.  750. 

81  Parks  v.  State,  110  Ga.  760,  36 
S.  E.  73;  Daniel  v.  State,  114  Ga. 
533.  40  S.  E.  707;  McFarland  v.  Don- 


TITLE    OF    ACTS. 


307 


by  congress.82  And  where  a  law  has  been  duly  passed  with 
a  sufficient  title,  it  may  be  placed  in  a  code  or  revision 
under  any  head  or  division  the  legislature  choose.83  A  pro- 
vision conferring  a  civil  right  or  remedy  is  not  void  because 
found  in  a  penal  code.84 

The  constitution  of  Louisiana  makes  provision  for  a  gen- 
eral appropriation  bill  and  requires  that  "all  other  appro- 
priations shall  be  made  by  separate  bills,  each  embracing 
but  one  subject."85  ■  An  act  entitled  "An  act  making  ap- 
propriations to  pay  deficiencies  due  by  the  state  for  the 
years  1885,  1886  and  1887,"  made  appropriations  of  money 
to  pay:  (1)  for  the  congressional  election  of  1887,  (2)  for  the 
expense  of  troops  in  the  labor  strikes  of  1887,  (3)  for  the 
special  election  of  June,  18S5,  and  (4)  for  the  special  elec- 
tion of  August,  1885.  These  were  held  to  be  four  subjects 
within  the  constitution,  and  the  act  was  held  void.86 

aldson,  115  Ga.  567,  41  S.  E.  1000;  subject.    Therefore,    clear    enact- 

Newgass  v.  At!.  &  D.  Ry.  Co.,  56  ments  of  substantive   law  estab- 

Fed.  676.  lishing  rights  —  like  section  294  — 

8-'Karasek  v.  Peier,  22  Wash.  419,  are  not  to  be  held  inoperative  be- 

61  Pac.  33,  50  L.  R.  A.  345.  cause  found  in  any  particular  code. 

83  Hennig  v.  Slaed,  138  Mo.  430,  If  a  provision  in  one  code  were  in 
40  S.  W.  95.  conflict  with  a  provision  on  the 

84  Enos  v.  Snyder,  131  Cal.  68,  63  same  subject  in  another  code,  per- 
Pac.  170,  82  Am.  St.  Rep.  330,  53  L.  haps  a  consideration  of  the  general 
R.  A.  221.  In  this  case  the  court  purpose  of  each  of  the  codes  might 
says:  "  We  have  here  a  code  system  afford  some  aid  in  solving  the  dif- 
which  is  for  convenience  and  par-  Acuity;  but  there  is  no  such  diffi- 
tial  classification  divided  into  four  culty  here,  for  there  is  no  provision 
codes,  to  each  of  which  a  name  is  in  any  of  the  other  codes  touching 
given;  but  they  are  inseparably  in-  the  question  here  involved."  p.  72. 
terwoven  with  each  other,  and  no        85Art.  53. 

one  of  them  is  complete  in  itself,  or  86  Klein  v.  State  Treasurer,  42  La. 
absolutely  confined  to  a  particular    Ann.  174,  7  So.  230. 


CHAPTER  V. 


TIME  OF  TAKING  EFFECT. 

s  172  (104).  When  silent  as  to  commencement— Date 
of  passage. — When  no  other  time  is  fixed  a  statute  takes 
effect  from  the  date  of  its  passage  —  from  the  date  of  the 
last  act  necessary  to  complete  the  process  of  legislation  and 
to  give  a  bill  the  force  of  law.1  When  approved  by  the 
executive  the  act  of  approval  is  the  last  act,  and  the  date  of 
it  is  the  date  of  passage  of  the  act.2     If  passed  after  a  veto, 


i  MatthewBV.  Zane.  7  Wheat.  164, 
211,  5  L  Ed.  425:  Louisville  v.  Sav- 

Bank,  10-4  U.  S.  469,  26  L.  Ed. 

Johnson  v.  Merchandise,  2 
Paine.  601.  Fed.  Caa  No.  7417;  The 
Brig  Ann,  1  Gall.  61,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

Heard  v.  Heard,  8  Ga.  380; 
Fairchild  v.  Gwynne,  14  Abb.  Pr. 
131;  Baker  v.  Compton.  52  Tex.  252; 
Temple  v.  Hays,  Morris  i Iowa),  12; 
In  re  Richardson,  2  Story,  571,  Fed. 

No,  11,7?7;  Roe  v.  Hersey,  3 
Wila  275;  Leschi  v.  Washington 
T'y,  1  Wash.  T.  13;  Rath  bone  v. 
Bradford,  1  Ala.  (N.  S.)  312;  Adm'r 
of  Weatherford  v.  Weatherford,  8 
Port,  171;  People  v.  Clark,  1  Cal. 
406;  State  v.  Click,  2  Ala.  26;  Tay- 
lor v.  State,  26  Ala.  283;  Mobile  R 

.  v.  State,  29  id.  573:  Branch 
Bank  v.  Murphy,  8  id.  119;  Dyer  v. 
State,  Meigs,  2:;7;  Logan  v.  State,  3 
Heisk.  442:  Day  v.  McGinnis,  1  id. 
810;  Dowlingv.  Bmith,  9  Md.  242; 
S  iit-t-  v.  Wr-a-ther-bee.  R  M.  Charlt. 

Ooodsell  v.  Boynton,  2  111.  555; 
Tarlton  v.  Peggs,  18  Ind.  24;  West 


v.  Creditors,  1  La.  Ann.  365;  Park- 
inson v.  State,  14  Md.  184,  74  Aim. 
Dec.  522;  State  v.  Bank.  12  Rich. 
L.  609;  Bassett  v.  United  States,  2 
Ct.  of  CI.  448. 

2  Gardner  v.  The  Collector,  6 
Wall.  499,  18  L.  Ed.  890;  Louisville 
v.  Savings  Bank,  104  U.  S.  469,  26 
L.  Ed.  775;  Mead  v.  Bagnall,  15 
Wis.  156;  Smets  v.  Weathersbee, 
R,  M.  Charlt.  537;  Risewiok  v. 
Davis,  19  Md.  82;  Baltimore  & 
Drum  Point  R.  R.  Co.  v,  Pumphrey, 
74  Md.  86.  21  Atl.  559;  Matter  of 
Kenneys.  56  Hun,  117, 9  N.  Y.  S.  182. 
In  West  Virginia  it  is  held  that  as, 
by  the  constitution,  the  governor 
does  not  belong  to  the  legislative 
department,  his  approval  of  an  act 
is  not  a  legislative  act  and  relates 
back  to  its  passage  by  the  houses, 
so  that  the  date  of  passage  is  not 
the  date  of  approval  but  the  date 
of  the  final  vote.  State  v.  Mounts,  36 
W.  Va.  179.  14  S.  E,  407,  15  LR.A. 
243;  State  v.  Scott,  36  W.  Va.  704, 
15  S.  E.  405.     In  Ohio  it  has  been  a 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT. 


309 


the  date  of  the  final  vote  is  the  date  of  passage.  When  a 
bill  becomes  a  law  by  the  non-action  of  the  executive,  under 
constitutional  regulations,  the  non-action  of  the  executive  is 
a  quasi  approval,  not  complete  until  the  lapse  of  the  time 
prescribed  for  his  affirmative  action  under  the  given  con- 
ditions. 

In  the  absence  of  evidence  of  the  precise  time  when  ap- 
proved, an  act  operates  during  the  whole  of  the  day  of  ap- 
proval.3 The  constitution  of  Tennessee  provides  that  no  act 
shall  become  a  law  until,  among  other  things  which  are 
legislative,  it"  be  signed  by  the  respective  speakers." 4  This 
signing,  though  thus  made  essential,  is  held  not  to  fix  the 
date  of  passage;  not  being  legislative  but  ministerial  in  its 
nature,  when  it  has  been  performed,  the  act  by  relation 
takes  effect  from  the  conclusion  of  the  proceeding  which  is 
legislative.5 

When  no  future  date  is  fixed,  the  act  takes  effect  imme- 
diately; no  time  is  allowed  for  publication.  There  would 
be  hardship  if  all  acts  were  left  so  to  take  effect.  The  rea- 
son of  the  rule  was  well  stated  by  Mr.  Doddridge,  of  coun- 
sel, in  Matthews  v.  Zane:6  "It  being  practically  impossible 
actually  to  notify  every  person  in  the  community  of  the 
passage  of  a  law,  whatever  day  might  be  appointed  for  its 
taking  effect,  no  general  rule  could  be  adopted  less  excep- 

uniform  practice  of  long  standing  take  effect  from  and  after  its  pas- 

for  the  president  of  the  senate  in  sage,  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 

signing  bills  to  affix  the  date  pre-  act  as  fixed  by  the  president  of  the 

ceded  by  the  word  "passed,"  thus:  senate,  when  he  signs  the  same,  is 

"passed,  April  1,  1890,"  and  it  is  intended."    State  v.   O   Brien,   47 

held  that  when  the  "passage"  of  Ohio  St.  464,  475,  476,  25  N.  E.  121. 

an  act  is  referred  to  in  legislation  3  Croven  v.  Atlantic  An.  R.  R  Co.. 

this  date  will  be  deemed  to  be  the  150  N.  Y.  225,  44  N.  E.  968;  Pooley  v. 

one  intended.     "This  may  be  re-  Buffalo,  122  N.  Y.  592,  26  N.  E.  16; 

garded,"  says  the  court,  "asalegis-  Mallory  v.   Hiles,  4  Met.  (Ky.)  53; 

lative  interpretation  of  the  term  Matter  of  Carrier,  IB   Bankr.  Reg. 

'passage,'  when   used  with   refer-  208;  Whitehead  v.  Wells,  29  Ark.  99. 

ence  to  the  time  when  an  act  shall  4  Art.  II,  sec.  18. 

take  effect;  and,  hence,  when  it  is  6 Lewis  v.  Woodfolk,  58  Tenn.  25. 

provided  in  a  statute  that  it  shall  6  7  Wheat.  179,  2  L.  Ed.  054. 


8  l'1  i  imi     OF   TAKING    BFFEOT. 

tionable.  The  general  rule  may,  in  some  instances,  produce 
hardship;  but  if  ignorance  of  the  law  was  admitted  as  an 
.  sense,  too  wide  a  door  would  lio  left  open  for  the  breach 
of  it."  Where  Btatntes  are  liable  to  produce  injustice  by 
taking  immediate  effect,  the  legislature  will,  except  through 
inadvertenoe,  appoint  a  future  day  from  whence  they  are  to 
be  in  force.  Blackstone,  after  treating  of  the  promulgation 
of  laws,  and  the  duty  of  legislatures  to  make  them  public, 
says,  "all  laws  should  therefore  be  made  to  commence  in 
fwturo,  and  be  notified  before  their  commencement,  which 
is  implied  in  the  term  prescribed."7 

^  173(105).  Acts  of*  parliament  formerly  took  effect 
from  the  first  day  of  the  session. —  By  the  common  law 
the  parliament  roll  being  the  exclusive  record  of  statutes, 
and  no  other  date  appearing  than  that  of  the  beginning  of 
the  session,  laws  took  effect  from  that  date,  when  no  other 
was  provided  by  the  act.  Until  the  statute  of  33  Geo.  III., 
3,  there  was  no  indorsement  on  the  roll  of  the  day  on 
which  the  bills  received  the  royal  assent,  and  all  acts  passed 
in  the  same  session  were  considered  as  having  received  the 
royal  assent  on  the  same  da)7,  and  were  referred  to  the  first 
day  of  the  session.8     13y  the  statute  of  33  Geo.  III.  it  was 

7 1  Black.  Com.  45;  1  Kent's  Com.  court,    in     pursuance    of    certain 

hip  Cotton  Planter,  1  Paine,  chancery  powers  delegated  to  them 

2'.   Fed.    Cas.    No.   3270;   Cross  v.  by  an  old  act  of  assembly.     The 

Harrison,   16  How.   19G,   14  L.  Ed.  royal   assent  was   refused   to  this* 

e  of   Albertson  v.  law  in  England, and  it  so  happened 

■  in,   1    Da  11.  9.     Yeates,  J.,  in  that  the  repeal  precedes  the  decree 

Morgan   v.   Stell,  5   Bin.  318,  gave  of  the  court  above  two  months,  but 

atement  of  the  case:  Albert-  the   repeal   was  not   known   here 

son,  claiming  certain  lands  by  de-  when  the   decree  was   made.    The 

scent  in  Bucks  count}*,  brought  an  court  determined,  upon  full  argu- 

if-nt    against     Robeson     for  ment,   that  the  unknown    repeal 

their  recovery.     The   title  of  the  could  not  affect  the  right  of  the 

land    was   clearly  shown    to  have  defendant  under  the  decree,  and 

been  at  one  time  in  the  ancestor  of  the   jury   found   accordingly,  and 

the  lessee  of  the  plaintiff;  but  at  a  the  decision  gave  general  satisfao- 

[uent  p<riod  the   lands  were  tion  to  the  profession. 

the   defendant  by  this  8  Rex  v.  Justices  of  Middlesex,  2 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT.  311 

provided  that  a  certain  parliamentary  officer  should  indorse 
on  every  act  of  parliament  "  the  day,  month  and  year  when 
the  same  shall  have  passed  and  shall  have  received  the  royal 
assent;  and  such  indorsement  shall  be  taken  to  be  a  part  of 
such  act,  and  to  be  the  date  of  its  commencement,  where  no 
other  commencement  shall  be  therein  provided." 

§  174  (106).  The  actual  date  of  passage  adopted  in  this 
country. —  The  injustice  of  permitting  laws  to  have  retro- 
active effect  by  relation  is  so  manifest  that  it  has  not  had 
much  countenance  in  the  United  States.  Without  depart- 
ing from  the  rule,  except  by  constitutional  direction,  that 
the  legislative  record  is  conclusive,  statutes  have  not  gen- 
erally had  effect  from  any  date  prior  to  their  actual  passage. 
The  fiction  that  all  laws  are  enacted  on  the  first  day  of  the 
legislative  session  is  not  adopted.  The  actual  date  either 
appears  in  pursuance  of  legislative  and  executive  practice 
upon  the  statute  itself,  or  it  is  otherwise  shown  by  official 
records;  and  this  date  is  popularly  known  and  judicially 
recognized.9 

In  North  Carolina  the  fiction  appears  to  be  recognized  as 
part  of  the  common  law,  and  all  laws  take  effect  by  relation 
from  the  first  day  of  the  session.10  Courts  are  bound  ex 
officio  to  take  notice  as  well  of  the  time  when  public  acts 
go  into  operation  as  of  their  provisions.11  Statutes  of  the 
same  session  passed  on  different  days  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  having  effect  from  the  same  day  because  they  pertain  to 
the  same  subject.12 

§  175  (107).  The  legislature  may  fix  a  future  day  for 
an  act  to  take  effect. —  The  power  to  enact  laws  includes 

Barn.  &  Ad.  818;    Panter  v.  Att'y  10  Hamlet  v.  Taylor,  5  Jones'  L. 

General.  6  Brown,  P.  C.  486;    Lat-  36;  Weeks  v.  Weeks,  5  Ired.  Eq. 

less  v.  Holmes.  4  T.  R.  6C0;  Part-  111,  47  Am.  Dec.  358.   See  Boston 

ridge  v.  Strange,  1  Plow.  79;  King  v.  Cummins,  16    Ga.   102,  60  Am. 

v.  Thurston,  1  Lev.  91;  Bac.  Abr.,  Dec.  717,  722. 

title  Statute,  C;    1   Kent's  Com.  "State  v.  Foote,  11  Wis.  14. 

456.  12 Taylor  v.   State,  31    Ala.   383; 

9Turnipseed  v.   Jones,   101  Ala.  Metropolitan  Board   v.  Schmades, 

593,  14  So.  377.  10  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  205. 


312 


TIMl     OF     i  A. KING     Mil  OT. 


the  power,  Bubject  to  constitutional  restrictions,  to  provide 
when  in  the  future,  and  upon  what  conditions  or  event, 
they  shall  take  effect."  Where  a  particular  time  for  the 
commencement  of  a  statute  is  appointed,  it  only  begins  to 
have  effect  and  to  speak  from  that  time,  unless  a  different 
intention  is  manifest,14  and  will  speak  and  operate  from  the 
that  day.18  Where  the  provisions  of  a  revising 
statute  are  to  take  effect  at  a  future  period,  and  the  statute 
contains  a  clause  repealing  the  former  statute  upon  the 
same  subject,  the  repealing  clause  wdl  not  take  effect  until 
the  other  provisions  come  into  operation.16  The  period  be- 
tween  the  passage  of  a  law  and  the  time  of  its  going  into 
effect  is  allowed  to  enable  the  public  to  become  acquainted 
with  its  provisions;  but  until  it  becomes  a  law  they  are  not 
compelled  to  govern  their  actions  by  it.  Thus,  an  act  which 
was  to  go  into  effect  at  a  future  day  established  new  pe- 
riods of  time  for  the  limitation  of  actions.  It  was  held  not 
applicable  to  a  case  having  several  years  to  run  where  the 
act  would  be  a  bar  the  moment  it  took  effect.  It  could  not 
ite  to  put  the  party  on  diligence   before  it  went  into 


is  People  v.  Salomon,  51  111.  37; 
New  Orleans  v.  Holmes,  13  La.  Ann. 
'  larpenter  v.   Montgomery,  7 
Blackf.  415;  Gorham.  v.  Springfield, 
21   Me.  58;  Cooper  v.  Curtis.  30  id. 
Parkinson  v.  State,  14  Md.  184. 
HBac.    Abr.,    tit.    Statutes,    C; 
Rice   v.   Ruddiman,  10   Mich.  125; 
Price  v.  Hopkin,  13  Mich.  318;  Gil- 
key  v.  Took.  60  Wis.  183;  .lackman 
rland,  84  Me.  133;  Swann  v. 
Back,  10  Misa  305;  Grinad  v.  State, 
:;t  <  I  lirchild  v.  Gwynne, 

1 1  Abb.  Pr.  121:  Latless  v.  Holmes, 
I  T.  P.  680;  Panter  v.  Attorney- 
J.  0  Brown,  P.  C.  -W.;  Dean 
v.  King,  13  Ired  I*  20:  Wheeler  v. 
•buck,  1*;  III.  861;  Boston  v. 
Cummins,  16  Ga.  102,  60  Am.  Dec. 


717;  Evansville,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Barbee,  74  Ind.  169;  Larrabee  v. 
Talbott,  5  Gill,  426.  46  Am.  Dec. 
637;  Charlessv.  Lamberson,  llowa, 
435;  Davenport  v.  Railroad  Co.,  37 
id.  624;  Wohlscheid  v.  Bergrath, 
46  Mich.  46.  See  Fosdick  v.  Perrys- 
burg.  14  Ohio  St.  472;  Town  of 
Fox  v.  Town  of  Kendall,  97  III.  72, 
75.  Upon  the  enactment  of  a  new 
penalty  for  an  olfense,  the  former 
penalty  is  not  superseded  until  the 
statute  prescribing  the  new  pen- 
alty takes  effect.  Grinad  v.  State, 
34  Ga.  270. 

15  Rice  v.  Ruddiman,  10  Mich. 
125;  Turnipseed  v.  Jones,  101  Ala. 
593,  14  So.  377. 

W  Spaulding  v.  Alford,  1  Pick.  33. 


TIME    OF   TAKING    EFFECT.  313 

operation.  As  it  gave  him  no  future  time  after  it  became 
a  law,  it  was  inoperative  as  to  that  case.17 

Where  a  general  statute  provides  that  acts  shall  take 
effect  at  a  specified  day  after  the  adjournment  of  the  ses- 
sion, it  will  govern  all  future  legislation  unless  there  is 
some  indication  of  a  contrary  purpose.18  Acquiescence  in 
such  a  statute  is  presumed  unless  dissent  is  shown.19  It  will 
govern  private  as  well  as  public  acts.20  An  act  may  be 
brought  into  effect  at  an  earlier  day  than  that  appointed  in 
its  provisions  by  an  amendatory  or  supplemental  act.  Thus 
the  Mississippi  constitution  provides  that,  if  acts  are  silent 
on  the  time  when  they  shall  take  effect,  they  shall  go  into 
effect  sixty  days  after  their  passage.  After  an  original  act 
a  supplemental  act  was  passed  which  provided  that  it  go 
into  effect  immediately.  This  provision  was  held  to  em- 
brace and  give  immediate  effect  to  the  original  act.21  A 
statute  may  be  framed  to  take  effect  on  the  happening  of  a 
future  event,22  and  this  event  may  be  the  passage  of  a  law 
in  another  state.23 

§  176  (108).  Constitutional  provisions  regulating  the 
time  of  acts  taking  effect —  Emergency  clause. —  In  many 
state  constitutions  are  regulations  of  this  sort:  that  acts 
shall  take  effect  a  certain  number  of  days  after  their  pas- 
sage, or  after  the  end  of  the  session,  unless  the  acts  them- 
selves otherwise  provide.24    In  several  a  larger  majority  is 

"Price  v.  Hopkin,  13  Mich.  318.  2" Cooper  v.  Curtis,  30  Me.  488. 

But  see  Hedger  v.  Rennaker,  3  Met.  21  West  F.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  5 

(Ky.)    255;    Stine    v.   Bennett,    13  How.  (Miss.)  273;  Swann  v.  Buck, 

Minn.   153;  Smith  v.   Morrison,  22  40  Miss.  268. 

Pick.  430.     See  post,  §§  706,  707.  '^  Ante,  §  96;  In  re  Hendricks,  5 

18  Ross  v.  New  England  Mortg.  N.  D.  114,  64  N.  W.  110. 
Security  Co.,  101   Ala.  362,  13  So.  23 1  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  1. 
564;  Santa  Cruz  Water  Co.  v.  Kron,  24 Day  v.  McGinnis,  1  Heisk.  310; 
74  Cal.  223,  15  Pac.  772;  Matter  of  Gorham  v.  Springfield,  ^1  Ma  58; 
Howe,  112  N.  Y.  100,  19  N.  E.  513,  2  New  Portland  v.  New  Vineyard,  16 
L.  R.  A.  825.  Ma  69. 

19  Jack  man  v.  Garland,   64  Me. 
133. 


'l  nil     OF   TAKING    rill  OT. 

required  to  give  immediate  effeot  to  an  act  than  to  pass  it; 
in  others  there  must  be  some  emergency  to  wan-ant  it. 
These  provisions  arc  mandatory.88  Where  it  is  required  by 
the  constitution  that  an  art  Bhall  declare  that  an  emergency 

sts  For  making  it  take  immediate  effeot,  such  declaration 

cannot  be  omitted.     If  the  emergency  clause  be  absent,  the 

■  •u  that  the  art  take  immediate  effeel  will,  under  such 

tutional  requirement,  be  held  void,  and  the  act  will 

take  effect  as  though  silent  on  that  subject.-6     The  emer- 

icy  clause  in  an  act  passed  June  14,  1852,  regulating  the 
remission  of  lines  and  forfeitures,  declared  the  act  to  be  in 
force  from  and  after  its  being  filed  with  the  clerks  of  the 

suit  courts  in  their  respective  counties.  It  was  held  that 
the  Legislature  intended  the  act  to  be  brought  into  force  as 
soon  as  it  could  be  distributed  in  the  several  counties,  and 
though  there  is  no  express  direction  to  the  secretary  of  state 
bute  it,  the  emergency  clause  implies  such  a  direction; 
it  is  held  also  that  the  secretary  of  state  is  to  be  presumed 
to  have  done  his  duty,  and  hence  that  the  act  was  in  force 
on  the  20th  day  of  December,  1852.27  What  may  be  deemed 
an  emergency  for  this  purpose  is  purely  a  legislative  ques- 
tion. The  courts  will  not  inquire  into  it,  nor  entertain  any 
question  of  its  sufficiency. '^  An  act  which  contains  an 
emergency  clause  and  provides  that  it  "shall  take  effect  and 
be  in  force  from  and  after  its  approval  by  the  governor," 
and  on  his  vetoing  it  is  passed  by  both  houses  over  the  veto, 
takes  effect  immediately  after  its  passage.29 

Where  the  constitution  provides  that  acts  shall  not  go 
into  effect  until  ninety  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
legislature,  unless  passed  with  an  emergency  clause  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  members  elected  to  either  house, 
to  be  entered  on  the  journals,  an  emergency  clause  will  be 

25.1  :  44.  id.  224;  Carpenter  v.  Montgomery, 

•*  Cain  v.  Goda,  84  Ind.  209.  7  Blackf.  415. 

•..   Dunning.  9    Ind.   20;        2!'Bi«gs  v.  McBride,  17  Ore.  640,. 

Stin<-  tt,  18  Minn.  153.  21  Pac.  878. 

utile  v.  State,  20  Ind.  400;  11 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT.  315' 

ineffective  unless  the  act  is  passed  by  the  requisite  vote.30 
Where  the  constitution  provided  that  "No  act  shall  take  ef- 
fect until  three  calendar  months  after  the  adjournment  of 
the  session  at  which  it  was  passed,"  unless,  etc.,  it  was  held 
that  where  the  adjournment  took  effect  on  April  8  the  act 
took  effect  on  July  9.31  Where,  in  a  similar  constitutional 
provision,  appropriation  bills  were  excepted,  it  was  held 
that  an  act  to  provide  for  the  purchase,  completion  and  fur- 
nishing of  a  state  capitol,  making  an  appropriation  therefor, 
and  conferring  additional  powers  on  the  capitol  commission, 
was  within  the  exception.32  An  act  in  regard  to  the  deposit 
of  public  moneys  by  county  treasurers  provided  that  it 
should  not  go  into  effect  until  the  expiration  of  the  terms  of 
the  county  treasurers  in  office  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  act.  The  constitution  provided  that  acts  should  go 
into  effect  three  months  after  the  adjournment  of  the  leg- 
islature. It  was  held  that  the  act  went  into  effect  as  a  law 
at  the  end  of  the  three  months  and  then  became  operative 
upon  the  officers  respectively  as  their  terms  expired.33 

§  177.  Where  the  constitution  requires  the  legislature 
to  fix  the  time. —  The  constitution  of  Kansas  provides  that 
"the  legislature  shall  prescribe  the  time  when  its  acts  shall 
be  in  force."  It  is  held  by  the  supreme  court  of  that  state 
that  "this  provision  plainly  requires  that  the  legislature 
shall  fix  a  single,  definite  time,  when  its  act  as  an  entirety 
shall  become  a  law," 34  and  that  where,  by  the  terms  of  an 
act,  different  parts  go  into  effect  at  different  times,  or  where 
it  goes  into  effect  at  different  times  as  to  several  persons, 
places  or  things,  it  is  unconstitutional  and  void.35  Where  an 
act  in  relation  to  certain  officers  was  to  go  into  effect "  after 

3"  Missouri,  Kan.  &  Tex.  Ry.  Co.  33  Hopkins  v.  Scott,  38  Neb.  661, 

v.  McGlamory,  92  Tex.  150,  41  S.  57  N.  W.  391. 

W.  466.  34  Miami   Co.  Com'rs  v.  Hiner,  54 

31  McGinn  v.  State,  46  Neb.  427,  Kan.  334,  38  Pac.  286. 

65  N.  W.  46,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  617, 30  35 Id.;  Finnigan  v.  State,  54  Kan. 

L.  R.  A.  450.  420,  38  Pac.  477;   State  v.  Deets,  54 

3*  State  v.   Rogers,  24  Wash.  417,  Kan.  504,  38  Pac.  798;  State  v.  New- 

64  Pac.  515.  bold,  56  Kan.  71,  42  Pac.  345;  Mont- 


316  TIME  OF  TAKING  EFFECT. 

th'e  present  term  of  the  officers  hereinbefore  named  Bhall 
have  expired,"  it  was  held  to  mean  after  all  the  terms  had 
expired  and  so  to  be  valid.3" 

178  (109).  Taking  effect  on  publication. —  Where  the 
taking  effect  o\'  an  act  depends  on  publication,  required  by  its 
own  terms  or  by  the  constitution,  it  is  a  condition,  and  the  time 
ran  be  fixed  only  by  the  date  of  compliance.37  The  provis- 
ions of  the  Louisiana  constitution  requiring  the  laws  to-be 
promulgated  in  the  English  language,  and  in  the  English 
and  French  Language,  does  not  prevent  the  legislature  from 
passing  acts  to  take  immediate  effect.38  A  joint  resolution 
of  a  general  nature  requires  the  same  publication  as  any 
other  law.39  When  it  is  provided  that  an  act  shall  go  into 
effect  on  publication  in  two  newspapers,  publication  in  one 
will  not  suffice,  though  ollicially  certified  to  be  so  published.411 
When  properly  published  it  will  take  effect  according  to  its 
own  terms,  although  subsequently  published  officially  in  dif- 
ferent terms.  In  one  instance,  by  the  later  publication,  the 
law  erroneously  appeared  to  repeal  a  prohibitory  section  of 
a  previous  law.  The  erroneous  publication  was  not  allowed 
to  avail  a  person  wrho  had  committed  the  act  prohibited  by 
such  prior  law,  which  was  still  in  force.  The  statute,  hav- 
ing ""one  into  effect  on  its  correct  publication  in  two  news- 
papers,  was  not  affected  by  the  subsequent  erroneous  pub- 
lication.41 The  publication  of  a  statute  without  the  enacting- 
clause  was  held  to  be  altogether  ineffective.42  An  act  was  to 
become  effective  upon  its  publication  in  the  Iowa  State  liegis- 

gomery  Co.  Com'rs  v.  Glass,  4  Kan.  689;    Re  Merchants'  Bank,  2    La. 

App.  286,  4.">  Par-.  !):;•").     While  all  Ann.  03;  State  v.  Judge,  14  La.  Ann. 

the  cases  agree  upon   the  general  486. 

principle  stated  there  seems  to  be  39 State  v.  School  Board  Fund,  4 

-'jiue  inconsistency  in   the  appli-  Kan.  261. 

cation  of  it.  40  Welch  v.  Battern,  47  Iowa,  147. 

86  Board  of  Com'rs  v.  Chew,  44  «  Hunt  v.  Murray,  17  Iowa,  313; 

Kan.  162,  24  Pac.  62,  State  v.  Donehey,  8  Iowa,  396. 

tin    v.    Goda.    84    Ind.    209;  42ln  re  Swartz,  47  Kan.  157,27 

Welch  v.  Battern,  47  Iowa,  147.  Pac.  839. 

88  Thomas  v.  Scott,  28  La,  Ann. 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT.  317 

ter  and  the  Jefferson  Souvenir.  There  was  a  Souvenir  pub- 
lished in  Jefferson,  but  it  was  not  called  the  Jefferson  Souve- 
nir. Publication  in  the  Iowa  State  Register  and  in  the  Souve- 
nir of  Jefferson  was  held  sufficient.43  It  has  been  held  that  a 
statute  is  in  force  from  the  precise  time  or  hour  of  publica- 
tion and  that  the  court  will  take  notice  of  and  ascertain 
such  time  when  important  to  the  rights  of  parties.41  But  in 
Wisconsin,  where  an  act  was  to  take  effect  from  and  after 
its  passage  and  publication,  the  day  of  publication  was  ex- 
cluded.45 

Under  a  constitutional  provision  that  "  no  act  shall  take 
effect  until  the  same  has  been  published  and  circulated  in 
the  several  counties  of  this  state  by  authority,"  it  was  held 
that  the  words  "published"  and  "circulated"  were  used 
synonymously.46  And  no  publication  or  circulation  is  good 
unless  done  by  authority.47  Under  a  general  constitutional 
provision  that  "  no  general  law  shall  be  in  force  until  pub- 
lished," publication  of  a  general  law  by  mistake  only,  in 
the  volume  of  private  laws,  is  a  sufficient  publication.43 

Though  going  into  effect  only  on  publication,  the  act  of 
record  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state  is  the  law,  when 
different  from  the  published  copy.49  A  law  would  probably 
not  be  deemed  to  be  published,  so  as  to  give  it  effect,  if  the 
publication  materially  differed  from  the  act  of  record,  but  a 
slight  error  would  be  disregarded.50  The  date  of  the  cer- 
tificate  of  the  secretary  of  state,  appended  to  a  published 
volume  of  laws,  will,  in  the  absence  of  any  suggestion  which 
may  lead  to  more  accurate  inquiry,  be  taken  to  be  the  date 
of  their  publication.51 

"Franklin  v.  Wiggins,  110  Iowa,  Ind.  13;   McCool  v.  State,  id.  379; 

702.  80  N.  W.  432.  State  v.  Dunning,  9  id.  20. 

44  Leavenworth  Coal  Co.  v.  Bar-  48  Re  Boyle,  9  Wis.  264. 

ber,  47  Kan.  29,  27  Pac.  114.  49  Clare  v.  State,  5  Iowa,  509.  See 

«  O'Connor  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  109  State  v.  Donehey,  8  id.  396. 

Wis.  253,  85  N.  W.  327,  53  L.  R.  A.  so  Mead  v.  Bagnall,  15  Wis.  156; 

831.  Smith  v.  Hoyt,  14  id.  252. 

48  Jones  v.  Cavins,  4  Ind.  305.  61  state   v.    Foote,    11    Wis.    14; 

47  Hendrickson  v.  Hendrickson,  7  Boyle's  Case,  9  Wis.  264;  Berliner 

v.  Waterloo,  14  Wis.  378. 


l  I M  I     OF    l  AKIN.,    BFFEOT. 

In  the  constitution  of  Wisconsin M  it  is  provided  that  "no 
genera]  law  shall  be  in  force  until  published."  The  words 
"general  law,"  here  used,  have  the  same  meaning  as  public 
arts  in  their  ordinary  acceptation,  as  distinguished  from 
private  acts  The  object  of  the  prohibition  was  the  protec- 
tion o(  the  people,  by  preventing  their  rights  and  interests 
from  being  affected  by  laws  which  they  had  no  means  of 
knowing.  But  all  are  hound  by  and  are  to  take  notice  of 
public  statutes.53 

§  17'.>  (110).  The  precise  time  of  taLing  effect — Fractions 
Of  a  day. —  At  what  precise  time  does  a  statute  go  into  op- 
eration, and  first  have  force  as  law,  when  it  takes  immedi- 
EPect?  Passing  over  the  fiction  of  relation  to  the  first 
day  of  the  session  which  has  been  mentioned,  there  is  still 
to  be  answered  the  question  whether  it  takes  effect  at  the 
ining  of  the  day  of  its  passage,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
next  day,  or  at  the  precise  moment  of  the  last  essential  act 
in  its  enactment. 

The  maxim  that  the  law  takes  no  notice  of  the  fractions 
of  a  day  is  not  of  universal  application.  The  legal  quality 
of  an  act  may  depend  on  when  it  was  done  with  reference 
to  other  acts  or  events  occurring  not  merely  on  the  same  day 
but  in  the  same  hour.  Instances,  in  great  variety,  will  at 
once  occur  to  the  professional  mind.  The  sequence  of  such 
related  facts  may  always  be  inquired  into,  unless  the  inquiry 
under  consideration  is  an  exception.  What  shall  be  accepted 
as  the  commencement  of  a  period  of  a  given  number  of 
days  is  an  inquiry  presently  to  be  considered.  That  is 
another  and  different  inquiry;  such  a  period  need  not  neces- 
sarily be  computed  upon  fractions  of  a  day.  Any  general 
rule  as  to  commencement  of  a  period  of  several  days  might 
operate  justly.  An  act  which  is  made  to  operate  six  hours 
before  the  time  when  it  was  actually  enacted  and  passed 
is  liable  to  the  same  objection,  except  in  degree,  as  when  it 
has  a  commencement  six  days  or  six  years  before  its  enact- 

•.  Jl.  art.  VII.  State  exreLCothren  v.  Lean,  0  Wis. 

■.vk  v.  Janesville,  10  Wis.  136;    284,  285. 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT.  319 

merit.  Hardship  is  sometimes  the  result  of  an  act  taking 
immediate  effect,  and  every  consideration  of  humanity  and 
justice  is  opposed  to  any  retroaction.  A  statute  commands 
only  from  the  time  it  has  the  force  of  law;  it  should  not  be 
accorded  a  beginning  a  moment  earlier  than  the  actual  time 
of  its  enactment  —  than  the  actual  time  of  the  last  act  in 
the  legislative  process.  ]STo  person  is  required  to  anticipate 
the  enactment  of  a  law,  though  he  may  be  charged  with  a 
knowledge  of  it  from  the  moment  of  its  adoption  if  it  at 
once  goes  into  operation. 

Lord  Mansfield  said  in  Combe  v.  Pitt:54  "Though  the 
law  does  not  in  general  allow  of  the  fractions  of  a  day,  yet 
it  admits  it  in  cases  where  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish: 
and  I  do  not  see  why  the  very  hour  may  not  be  so  too, 
where  it  is  necessary  and  can  be  done." 

In  Minnesota  the  day  of  the  passage  is  excluded  where 
the  act  provides  that  it  shall  take  effect  "  from  and  after 
its  passage."55  So  in  Wisconsin,  where  an  act  takes  effect 
from  and  after  its  passage  and  publication,  the  day  of  pub- 
lication is  excluded.56 

There  are  cases  which  hold  that  acts  taking  immediate 
effect  take  effect  from  the  first  moment  of  the  day  on  which 
they  were  passed.57  They  proceeded,  however,  on  unsatis- 
factory reasons.  Prentiss,  J.,  said,  in  the  Matter  of  Wel- 
man,  "  It  would  be  as  unsafe  as  it  would  be  unfit  to  allow 
the  commencement  of  a  public  law,  whenever  the  question 
may  arise,  whether  at  a  near  or  distant  time,  to  depend 
upon  the  uncertainty  of  parol  proof,  or  upon  anything  ex- 
trinsic to  the  law,  and  the  authenticated  recorded  proceed- 
ings in  passing  it."  It  cannot  be  laid  down  as  constitu- 
tional law  that  the  commencement  of  public  laws  must  be 

84  3  Burr.  1423.  57  Tonilinson  v.  Bullock,  L.  R.  4 

55  Parkinson  v.  Brandenburg,  35  Q.  B.  Di v.  230;  Matter  of  Howes,  21 

Minn.  294,  28  N.  W.  019.    See  State  Vt.  619;  Matter  of  Welman,  20  id. 

v.  Messmore,  14  Wis.  163,  174.  653;   State  v.   Superior  Court,   25 

se  O'Connor  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  109  Wash.  271,  65  Pac.  183. 

Wis.  253,  85  N.  W.  327,  53  L.  R.  A. 

831. 


l  imi     .'i     TAKING    mm  OT. 

proved  or  provable  in  this  manner.  The  legislature  may 
make  a  law  take  effect  on  the  happening  of  an  event  which 
•  be  ascertained  otherwise  than  by  the  "recorded  pro- 
ceedings  in  passing  it."  The  validity  of  a  statute  cannot 
be  judicially  determined  by  the  court's  judgment  of  what 

and///1. 

The  law  takes  notice  of  fractions  of  a  day  when  neces- 
sary. The  genera]  principle  declared  by  Lord  Mansiield  is 
believed  to  be  sound  ami  established  by  the  weight  of  au- 
thority, that  where  it  is  necessary  to  justice  and  it  can  be 
done,  the  law  takes  notice  of  the  parts  of  a  day;  then  the 
precise  time  when  an  act  is  clone  may  be  shown.58  This 
jity  exists  when  an  act  is  done  on  the  same  clay  that 
tive  act  is  passed,  if  that  statute  being  passed  after- 
wards should  not  affect  such  act,  or,  being  passed  before, 
should  do  so. 

It  was  said  in  Grosvenor  v.  Magill:59  "It  is  true  that  for 
many  purposes  the  law  knows  no  divisions  of  a  day;  but 
whenever  it  becomes  important  to  the  ends  of  justice,  or  in 
order  to  decide  upon  conflicting  interests,  the  law  will  look 
into  fractions  of  a  day  as  readily  as  into  the  fractions  of 
any  other  unit  of  time.™  The  rule  is  purely  one  of  con- 
ace,  which  must  give  way  whenever  the  rights  of  par- 
ties require  it.  There  is  no  indivisible  unity  about  a  day 
which  forbids  one,  in  legal  proceedings,  to  consider  its  com- 
ponent hours,  any  more  than  about  a  month  which  restrains 
us  from  regarding  its  constituent  days.  The  law  is  not 
made  of  such  unreasonable  and  arbitrary  rules."  The  weight 
of  American  authority  is  that  a  statute  which  is  to  go  into 
effect  immediately  is  operative  from  the  instant  of  its  pas- 
sage.61 

M  Wells  v.  Bright,  4  Dev.  &  Batt.  239;  Burgess  v.  Salmon,  97  U.  S.  381, 

L.  173;  Louisville  v.  Savings  Bank,  24LEd.  1104;  Kennedy  v.  Palmer,  6 

104  U.  S.  469,  26  L.  Ed.  ?7r>;  Savage  Gray,  316;  Brainard  v.  Bushnell,  11 

v.  State.  18  Fla.  970;  Bigelowv.  Will-  Conn.  17. 
son,  1  Pick.  485;  Judd  v.  Fulton,  10        6<J  37  111.  230. 
Barb.  117;  Lang  v.  Phillips,  27  Ala.        60  2  Black.  Com.  1-10  and  notes. 

..iwsonv.Eichbaum,2Grant's        B1  Matter  of  Richardson,  2  Story, 

Caa  130;  Grosvenor  v.  Magill,  37  I1L  571,  Fed.  Caa  No.  11,777;  Gardner  v. 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT. 


321 


In  Ohio  it  is  held  that  where  an  act  is  to  take  effect  from 
its  passage,  it  means  the  date  of  signing  by  the  president  of 
the  senate.  By  a  uniform  custom  the  president  of  the  sen- 
ate, in  signing  acts,  gives  the  date,  preceded  by  the  word 


The  Collector,  6  Wall.  499, 18  L.  Ed. 
890;  Strauss  v.  Heiss,  48  Md.  292; 
Berry  v.  Railroad  Co.,  41  id.  464,  20 
Am.  Rep.  69;  Legg  v.  Mayor,  etc., 
42  Md.  211;  Louisville  v.  Savings 
Bank,  104  U.  S.  469,  26  L.  Ed. 
775;  People  v.  Clark,  1  Cal.  406; 
Clark  v.  Janesville,  10  Wis.  136; 
Parkinson  v.  Brandenburg,  35  Minn. 
294,  59  Am.  Rep.  326;  Grosvenor  v. 
Magill,  37  111.  239;  Burgess  v.  Sal- 
mon, 97  U.  S.  381,  24  L.  Ed.  1104; 
Kennedy  v.  Palmer,  6  Gray,  316; 
Fairchild  v.  Gwynne,  14  Abb.  Pr. 
121;  Re  Wynne,  Chase's  Dec.  227, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,117;  Osborne  v. 
Huger,  1  Bay,  176.  See  King  v. 
Moore,  Jeff.  (Va.)  8;  Leavenworth 
Coal  Co.  v.  Barber,  47  Kan.  29,  27 
Pac.  114;  Ottnian  v.  Hoffman,  7 
Misc.  714,  28  N.  Y.  S.  28;  Galveston, 
H.  &  S.  A  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  22  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  336,  55  S.  W.  389. 

In  the  Matter  of  Richardson,  2 
Story,  571,  Story,  J.,  said:  "  It  may 
not,  indeed,  be  easy  in  all  cases  to  as- 
certain the  very punctumtemporis; 
but  that  ought  not  to  deprive  the 
citizens  of  any  rights  created  by 
antecedent  laws  and  vesting  rights 
in  them.  In  cases  of  doubt,  the 
time  should  be  construed  favor- 
ably for  citizens.  The  legislature 
have  it  in  their  power  to  prescribe 
the  very  moment  in  futuro  alter 
the  approval  when  a  law  sha  1  have 
effect;  and  if  it  does  not  choose  to 
do  so,  I  can  perceive  no  ground 
why  a  court  of  justice  should  he 
called  on  to  supply  the  defect.  But 
21 


when  the  time  can  be  and  is  fully 
ascertained  when  a  bill  was  ap- 
proved, I  confess  I  am  not  bold 
enough  to  say  that  it  became  a  law 
at  any  antecedent  period  of  the 
same  day." 

In  Arnold  v.  United  States,  9 
Cranch,  104.  3  L  Ed.  671,  it  was 
held  that  an  act  takes  effect  from 
its  passage;  on  the  day  of  its  pas- 
sage; that  it  affected  a  transaction 
of  that  day,  on  the  rule,  that "  when 
a  computation  is  to  be  made  from 
an  act  done,  the  day  on  which  the 
act  is  done  is  to  be  included." 

In  Louisville  v.  Savings  Bank, 
104  U.  S.  469,  478,  26  L  Ed.  775,  the 
court,  by  Harlan,  J.,  said:  "In 
view  of  the  authorities  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  the  courts  may,, 
when  substantial  justice  requires 
it,  ascertain  the  precise  hour  when 
a  statute  took  effect  by  the  ap- 
proval of  the  executive.  But  it  may 
be  argued  that  the  rule  does  not 
apply  where  the  inquiry  is  as  to 
the  time  when  constitutional  pro- 
visions become  operative  by  popu- 
lar vote;  that  a  popular  vote,  given 
at  an  election  covering  many  hours 
of  the  same  day,  should  be  deemed 
an  indivisible  act,  effectual,  by  re- 
lation, from  the  moment  the  elect- 
ors entered  upon  the  performance 
of  that  act,  to  wit:  from  the  open- 
ing of  the  polls.  But  we  are  of 
opinion  that  no  such  distinction 
can  be  maintained.  In  determin- 
ing when  a  slatute  took  effect,  no 
account  is  taken  of  the  time  it  re- 


TIKE   o\-    TAKING    EFFECT. 

"passed."  Ami  where  fehe  final  vote  on  sach  an  aot  was 
taken  on  March  26th,  and  it  was  Bigned  by  the  speaker  of 

the  house  on  March  .".1st,  and  sent  to  the  senate  on  tho 
same  day  ami  Bigned  by  the  president  of  the  senate  on 
April  1st,  it  was  held  that  it  was  not  in  effect  until  April  1st, 
ami  that  acts  done  in  pursuance  of  the  act  between  March 
26th  and  April  1st  were  unauthorized  and  void.02 

^  lso.  Acts  approved  on  the  same  day.-  Wheretwoaots 
are  approved  on  the  same  day  the  presumption  is  that  they 
were  approved  in  numerical  order;6"  but  the  court  will  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  facts  and  ascertain  the  actual  order  of 
approval,64  and,  if  the  two  acts  are  inconsistent,  the  one  last 
approved  will  prevail,  though  it  may  have  been  the  first  to 

the  legislatur 

181.  Time  of  taking  effect  —  Miscellaneous  points 
ami  cases. —  If  a  particular  day  is  named  for  an  act  to  take 

t,  but  it  is  not  approved  until  after  that  day,  its  pro- 
visions, in  terms  prospective,  will  not  have  effect  until  after 
the  date  of  approval.66  And  if  the  main  and  principal  clause 

;  act  is  to  come  into  operation  from  a  day  named,  the 
other  subsidiary  clauses  may  also  be  held  to  commence  from 
that  day,  though  it  be  not  so  expressed,  if  it  would  be  in- 
convenient that  they  should  commence  from  the  passing  of 

ceived  the  sanction    of   the   two  polls,  the  people  had  adopted  such 

1. ranches  of  the  legislative  depart-  provision."    See  Welch  v.  Hanni- 

lii. -nt,  which  sanction  is  as  essen-  bal,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  26  Mo.  App.  358. 
tial  to  the  validity  of  the  statute        "-'State  v.  O'Brien,  47  Ohio  St. 

:i>  the  approval  of  the  executive.  464,  25  N.  E.  121. 

k  to  the  final  act  of  approval        6:i  State  v.  Davis,  70  Md.  237,16 

by   the    executive  to    find    when  Atl.  529;    Ottman   v.   Hoffman,   7 

.tute  took  effect,  and,  when  Misc.  714,  28  N.  Y.  S.  28. 

jary,  inquire  as  to  the  hour  of        G4  Davis  v.  Whidden,  117  Cal.  618, 

the  day  when  that  approval  was  in  40  Pac.   760;  Ottman  v.  Hoffman, 

fact   given.     So    we    perceive    no  7  Misc.  714,  88  X.  Y.  S.  28. 
sound  reason  why  tin;  courts  may        M  Davis  v.  Whidden,  117  Cal.  618, 

not,  in   proper  cases,  inquire  as  to  49  Pac.  766;  State  v.  Halliday,  63 

the  hour  when  such  approval  be-  Ohio  St.  165,  67  N.  E.  1097. 
<  ame  etfectual.  to  wit:   as  to  the        ™ Burn  v.  Carvalho,  4  Nev.  &  M. 

time  when,  by  the  closing  of  the  B9& 


TIME   OF   TAKING   EFFECT.  323 

the  act.67  "Where  an  act  passed  May  16,  1894,  provided 
that  it  should  be  in  effect  from  May  14, 1894,  it  was  held  to 
be  in  effect  from  its  passage."8  It  was  claimed  that  the  fix- 
ing of  an  impossible  date  was  the  same  as  fixing  no  date, 
and,  therefore,  that  the  general  law  would  apply,  fixing  the 
date  of  July  4.  A  cit}7  charter  provided  that  it  should  go 
into  immediate  effect.  A  general  law  provided  that,  if  an 
act  was  silent  on  the  subject,  it  should  take  effect  twenty 
days  after  its  approval  by  the  governor.  The  charter  in 
question  was  amended  by  substituting  a  new  section  for  an 
old  one  and  the  amendatory  act  was  silent  as  to  its  taking 
effect.  It  was  held  that  the  new  section  became  subject  to 
the  provision  in  the  charter  and  went  into  immediate  effect.69 
An  act  may  provide  that  some  provisions  shall  go  into  effect 
at  one  time  and  others  at  another  time.70  An  act  was  passed 
in  1893  to  change  the  compensation  of  the  clerk  of  Onon- 
daga county  from  fees  to  a  salary.  The  term  of  the  clerk 
then  in  office  expired  December  31, 1894.  The  act  provided : 
"This  act  shall  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January, 
1895."  It  required  the  board  of  supervisors  of  the  county 
to  fix  the  salary  prior  to  the  election  of  every  such  clerk 
which  occurred  in  the  fall.  The  court  held  that  it  was  the 
plain  intent  of  the  legislature  that  the  act  should  apply  to 
the  clerk  who  took  office  on  January  1,  1895,  and  that  the 
provisions  as  to  fixing  the  salary  of  the  office  were  in  effect 
before  the  election.71 

§  182.  Where  act  provides  for  things  to  he  done  liefore 
it  takes  effect. —  An  act  can  have  no  force  until  it  becomes 
a  law  or  takes  effect.72  By  reason  of  inadvertence  and  un- 
expected delay  in  passing  an  act,  a  date  which  was  prospec- 
tive when  a  bill  was  introduced  may  become  retrospective 

67  Whitborn  v.  Evans,  2  East,  135.  Judge.  114  Mich.  655,  72  N.  W.  982; 

^State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.   L.  Gusthal   v.  Strong,   23   App.   Div. 

298,  30  Atl.  543.  315,  48  N.  Y.  S.  652. 

•»  Anderson  v.  O'Donnell,  29  S.        «  People  v.  Butler,  147  N.  Y.  164, 

C.  855,  7  S.  E.  523,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  41  N.  E.  416. 
728,  1  L.  R.  A.  632.  ™  Evans  v.  Lumber  Co.,  21  Ohio 

"»  Osborn     v.     Charlevoix    Circ.  C.  C.  80. 


i  l  mi     OF   TAKING    ii  I  EOT, 

by  the  time  it  is  passed.  (Jnder  an  existing  law  a  city 
treasurer  was  eleoted  annually  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  April. 
Prior  to  the  eleotibn  of  1897  the  legislature  passed  an  act 
with  an  emergency  clause,  providing  that  on  the  first  Tues- 
day of  April,  L897,  and  every  two  years  thereafter,  a  treas- 
urer should  be  elected  for  a  term  of  two  years.  The  act 
not  approved  until  after  the  election  of  1S!)7.  It  was 
held  that  the  act  was  merely  inoperative  as  to  the  election 
of  1897  and  that  its  effect  was  to  provide  for  a  two-year 
term  and  elections  in  odd  years,  and  that  the  first  election 
under  the  act  would  take  place  in  IS'jO.73  An  act  of  con- 
gress in  effect  August  28,  L894:,  provided  that  certain  duties 
should  be  collected  on  and  after  August  1.  In  course  of  the 
ge  of  the  act,  which  was  pending  many  months,  this 
date  was  changed  from  June  1  to  June  30  and  then  to 
August  1.  The  court  reasons  from  this  that  the  evident 
intent  of  congress  was  to  give  the  public  an  opportun  tv  to 
adjust  their  affairs  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  anil  to  make 
it  prospective,  and  held  that  the  meaning  was  that  the 
duties  should  be  collected  from  August  1  or  as  soon  there- 
after as  the  bill  became  a  law.74 

§  183.  Meaning  of  words  "  now,"  "  heretofore,"  <*  here- 
after,'' "  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act,"  etc.— An 
act  speaks  from  the  time  it  takes  effect.75  The  words  "  here- 
tofore" and  "hereafter  "  in  an  act  are  construed  as  hav- 
ing reference  to  the  date  of  taking  effect  and  not  to  the 
date  of  passage,76  unless  the  act  itself  plainly  shows  a  con- 
trary intent.  The  supreme  court  of  Texas  says:  "We  ap- 
prehend that  no  universal  rule  of  construction  can  be 
adopted  when  a  statute  which  makes  a  distinction  between 
future  and  past  transactions  is  passed  upon  one  day  to  take 

pe  v.  People,  26  Colo.  127,  56'      w  Grant  v.  Alpena,  107  Mich.  335, 
Pac.571.  G5N.  W.  230. 

"United  States  v.  Burr,  159 U.&        ™  Evansville,   etc.   R.   R.   Co.  v. 
5  -   C.  l:-i .   10  12,    10  L.  Ed.  82.     Barbee,  59  Iud.  502;  74  id.  171. 
An  I  f«ee  Commonwealth  v.  Holli- 
day,  98  Ky.  616,  33  S.  W.  943. 


TIME   OF   TAKING   EFFECT.  325 

effect  upon  another,  but  we  think  the  general  rule  is  that  a 
statute  speaks  from  the  time  it  becomes  a  law,  and  that  what 
has  occurred  between  the  date  of  its  passage  and  the  time 
it  took  effect  is  deemed  with  respect  to  the  statute  a  past 
transaction.  This  is  in  analogy  to  the  rule  for  the  construc- 
tion of  wills.  This  rule  should  not  be  applied  when  the 
language  of  the  act  shows  a  contrary  intention."77 

The  bankrupt  law  enacted  on  the  19th  day  of  August, 
1841,  was  provided  to  take  effect  only  from  and  aftur  Feb- 
ruary 1,  1842.  This  was  equivalent  to  declaring  that  it 
should  have  no  effect  until  that  day,  and  hence  it  did  not 
suspend  the  operation  of  the  state  insolvent  laws  until  that 
day.78  The  exception  of  injuries  "already  sustained"  in  a 
statute  is  to  be  construed  as  spoken  when  it  took  effect.79 
So  of  the  words  "  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act,"  80  and 
"  after  the  passage  of  this  act." 81 

The  Illinois  corporation  act  of  1872  permitted  the  con- 
solidation of  corporations  of  the  same  kind  engaged  in  the 
same  business  in  the  same  vicinity,  but  provided  that  "no 
more  than  two  corporations  now  existing  shall  be  consoli- 
dated into  one  under  the  provisions  hereof."  The  section 
containing  these  provisions  was  amended  and  re-enacted  in 
1889,  but  the  words  quoted  continued  unchanged.  It  was 
held  that  the  words  "now  existing"  in  the  amended  sec- 
tion related  to  1872  and  not  to  1SS9.82  An  act  of  1S91  re- 
lating to  fees  and  salaries  was  held  invalid  as  to  county 
treasurers  because  it  excepted  one  county  from  its  operation. 
In  1893  the  act  was  amended  so  as  to  remove  this  objection. 

"  Galveston,  H.  &  S.  A.  R  R.  Co.  Iowa,  442;  Rogers  v.  Vass,  6  Iowa, 

v.  State,  81  Tex.  572,  598,  17   S.  W.  408. 

67.  And  see  Scales  v.  Marshall,  96  81  Schneider  v.  Hussey,  2  Idaho, 

Tex.  140,  70  S.  W.  945.  8,  1  Pac.  343;    Matter  of  Howe,  48 

™  Larrabee  v.  Talhott,  5  Gill,  426.  Hun,  235. 

79Jaokraan  v.   Garland,   64  Me.  82  Barrows  v.  People's  Gas  Light 

133.  &  Coke  Co.,  75  Fed.  794.    To  same 

8«  Thompson      v.      Independent  effect,  Fischer  v.  Simon,  95  Tex. 

School  District,  102  Iowa,  94,  70  N.  234,  66  S.  W.  447. 
W.  1093;  Charless  v.  Lamberson,  1 


TIME    OS   TAKING    BFFEOT. 

The  original  aot  provided  that  it  should  not  apply  to  county 
treasurers eleoted  before  the  taking  effect  of  the  act,  and  this 
provision  remained  in  the  act  after  amendment  It  was 
held  that  it  had  reference  to  the  time  when  the  original  act 
would  have  taken  effect  if  valid,  and  that  it  applied  to  treas- 
urers elected  after  the  act  of  1892  would  have  been  effect- 
ive, and  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1803.83  An  aot 
of  tin-  state  of  Maryland,  passed  in  1868,  jn  regard  to  corpo- 
rations, provided  that  any  corporation  "  heretofore  formed  " 

:  re-incorporate  under  the  act.  This  act  was  incorpo- 
rated into  the  code  of  1S68  and  the  same  language  was  re- 
tained. It  was  held  that  the  words  "  heretofore  formed" 
in  the  code  did  not  refer  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1808, 
but  to  the  passage  of  the  code,  and  that  a  corporation  organ- 
ized in  1869  under  the  act  of  18G8  could  re-incorporate  under 
the  code  of  1SSS.84 

Is4  (111).  Computation  of  time  when  .in  act  is  to  take 
effect  in  a  specified  number  of  days. —  Such  a  computation 
must  be  made  when  by  constitutional  or  statutory  provision 
a  statute  is  to  go  into  operation  in  a  specified  number  of 
days  after  its  passage,  or  after  the  adjournment  of  the  leg- 
islature, or  is  to  take  effect  in  a  given  time  after  its  passage 
by  the  two  bouses,  in  the  absence  of  executive  action  upon 
it.  Periods  of  time  are  prescribed  in  statutes,  or  fixed  by 
the  common  law,  for  three  purposes:  First,  to  limit  the  time 
within  which  only  something  may  be  done;  second,  to  limit 
the  time  after  which  only  something  may  be  done;  third, 
to  fix  a  precise  time  at  which  only  something  may  be  done 
or  commenced.  The  precise  future  time  at  which  an  act  is 
appointed  to  be  done  or  take  effect,  determinable  by  com- 
putation from  a  date  or  event,  is  in  general  the  last  point 
of  the  period;  if  a  period  of  days,  the  last  day.  No  frac- 
tions of  a  day  being  recognized,  a  period  of  days  may  for 
all  purposes  be  computed  by  one  uniform  rule,  unless  there 
is,  in  a  particular  case,  a  different  intention  indicated. 

Ibury  v.    Board  of  Com'rs,        M  Erb  v.    Grimes,  94  Md.  92,  5a 
157  [nd  448,62 N.  E.  45.  AtL  897. 


TIME    OF   TAKING   EFFECT. 


327 


The  rule  now  supported  by  nearly  all  of  the  modern  cases 
is  that  the  time  should  be  computed  by  excluding  the  day 
or  the  day  of  the  event  from  which  the  time  is  to  be  com- 
puted.and  including  the  last  day  of  the  number  constitut- 
ing the  specified  period.85  Thus,  if  an  act  is  to  take  effect 
in  thirty  days  from  and  after  its  passage,  passing  on  the 
1st  day  of  March,  it  would  go  into  operation  on  the  31st 
day  of  that  month.  It  would  commence  to  operate  at  the 
first  moment  of  the  last  day  of  the  thirty,  ascertained  by 
adding  that  number  to  the  number  of  the  date  of  passage. 

It  is  the  general  rule  for  computing  time  consisting  of 
days,  weeks,  months  or  years.  In  such  a  computation  days 
are  entire  days,  fractions  of  a  day  being  disregarded ; 86  and 
whether  the  computation  is  from  an  act  done,  or  from  a  day 
or  the  day  of  a  date,  the  day  of  such  act,  or  the  day  or  date 
mentioned,  is  to  be  excluded.87     Where  a  session  of  the  leg- 


es Simmons  v.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  147; 
Bemis  v.  Leonard,  118  Mass.  502; 
Stebbins  v.  Anthony,  5  Colo.  356; 
Garner  v.  Johnson,  22  Ala.  494; 
Hall  v.  Cassidy,  25  Miss.  48;  Mitch- 
ell v.  Woodson,  37  id.  567;  Ex  parte 
Dillard,  68  Ala.  594;  Hollis  v.  Fran- 
cois, 1  Tex.  118;  Sindall  v.  Balti- 
more, 93  Md.  526,  49  Atl.  645;  Coe 
v.  Caledonia,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 
197,  6  N.  W.  621;  Spencer  v.  Hang, 
45  Minn.  231,  47  N.  W.  794;  Brady 
v.  Moulton,  61  Minn.  185,  63  N.  W. 
489;  Frazier  v.  Draper,  51  Mo.  App. 
163;  O'Connor  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  109 
Wis.  253,  85  N.  W.  327,  53  L.  R.  A. 
831;  Williams  v.  Burgess.  13  A.  & 
E.  635;  Hardy  v.  Ryle,  9  B.  &  C.  603; 
Radcliffe  v.  Bartholomew,  L.  R. 
(1892)  1  Q.  B.  161. 

8e  Brown  v.  Buzan,  24  Ind.  194; 
Jacobs  v.  Graham,  1  Blackf.  392; 
Cornell  v.  Moulton,  3  Denio,  12; 
Griffin  v.  Forrest.  49  Mich.  309,  13 
N.  W.  603;  Dousman  v.  O'Malley,  1 


Doug.  (Mich.)  450;  Blake  v.  Crown- 
ingshield,  9  N.  H.  304;  Portland 
Bank  v.  Maine  Bank,  11  Mass.  204; 
Murfree  v.  Carmack,  4  Yerg.  270, 
26  Am.  Dec.  232;  Berry  v.  Clements, 
9  Humph.  312;  S.  C,  11  How.  398. 
See  Cook  v.  Moore.  95  N.  C.  1; 
White  v.  Hinton,  3  Wyo.  753,  30 
Pac.  953,  17  L.  R.  A.  66. 

87  Rand  v.Rand,  4  N.  H.267;  Bemis 
v.  Leonard,  118  Mass.  502;  Wiggiii 
v.  Peters,  1  Met.  127;  Seekonk  v. 
Rehoboth,  8  Cush.  371;  Goode  v. 
Webb,  52  Ala.  452;  White  v.  Ha- 
worth,  21  Mo.  App.  439;  Pyle  v. 
Maulding,  7  J.  J.  Marsh.  202;  Brack- 
ett  v.  Brackett,61  Mo.  223;  Hart  v. 
Walker,  31  id.  26;  Walsh  v.  Boyle, 
30  Md.  262;  Small  v.  Edrick,  5 
Wend.  137;  Doyle  v.  Mizner,  41 
Mich.  519;  Lester  v.  Garland,  15 
Ves.  248;  Webb  v.  Fairmaner,  3 
M.  &  W.  473;  Ex  parte  Fallon,  5 
T.  R.  283;  Young  v.  Higgon,  6  M.  & 
W.  49;  Protection  Life  v.  Palmer, 


5 


i  [Ml     OF   TAKING    n  E  I  OT. 


islatare  was  limited  (»>  forty  days,  it  was  held  that,  at  tho 
very  least,  it  would  include  forty  days  of  twenty-four  hours 
each,  computed  from  the  hour  of  convening,  and  where  tho 
m  convened  at  noon  on  November  6,  the  forty  days 
w;is  held  not  to  expiiv  until  December  L6a1  noon.88  Where 
a  notice  is  to  be  published  for  a  certain  period,  it  is  held  to 
mean  during  such  period,  and  the  full  period  must  intei  vene 
between  the  lirst  publication  and  the  event,  computed  by 
excluding  the  day  of  publication  and  including  the  day  of 
the  event.88     When  a  statute  requires  that  a  certain  num- 


81  111.  SS;  Sheets  v.  Selden,  2  Wall. 
177,  17  1..  1.1.  822;  Cork  v.  Bunn,  6 
John.:::1'.:  Hoffman  v.  Duel,  5  id. 
spie  v.  White,  HI  id.  117: 
Dayton  v.  Mclntyre.  5  How.  l'r. 
117;  Black  v.  Johns,  68  Pa.  St.  83; 
Mengee  v.  Frick.  73  Pa  St  L37,  L3 
Am.  Rep.  7:'.l ;  Presbrey  v.  Williams. 
1")  Ma--.  198;  Bowman  v.  Wood,  41 
111.  203;  Hall  v.  Cassidy.  25  Miss.  48; 
Columbia  T.  Co.  v.  Haywood,  10 
i.  422;  Page  v.  Weymouth,  47 
Me.  238;  Carothers  v.  Wheeler,  1 
Ore.  104;  Irving  v.  Humphreys, 
Hopk.  304:  Vanderburgh  v.  Van 
l^usselaer,  G  Paige,  147;  Gorham 
v.  Wing,  10  Mich.  480;  Bigelow  v. 
Willson.l  Pick.  487;  Judd  v.  Fulton, 
10  Barh.  117:  Snyder  v.  Warren,  2 
Cow.  518,  14  Am.  Dec.  519;  Sims  v. 
Hampton,  1  S.  &  R.  411;  State  v. 
5  Rich.  L.  299;  Steamer 
Mary  Diane  v.  Beehler,  12  Mo.  477; 
Kimm  v.  Osgood's  Adm.,  19  id.  GO; 
Windsor  v.  China.  4  Greenlf.  298; 
■..  '  :  niham,  4  Wash.  < '.  C. 

No.  10,877;  Cromelien 

v.  Brink,  29  Pa.  St.  522;  Homan  v. 

6  Cow.  659;  Weeka  v.  Hull, 

376,   50    Am.    Dec.    249; 

:i   v.  Love,  8  Yerg.  215;  Duffy 

g  i.-n.  <".  i  Pa  St.  240.    See  Smith 

v.  Harris,  34  G& 


88  White  v.  Hinton,  3  Wyo.  753, 
30  Pac.  953,  17  L.  R.  A.  66.  The 
court  says:  "In  ordinary  language, 
a  day  commencing  at  noon  means 
a  day  closing  at  noon  of  the  follow- 
ing day.  The  technical  rule  of 
law,  making  a  part  of  a  day  a 
whole  day,  is  not  recognized  as 
controlling  legislative  days.  A  cal- 
endar day,  even,  is  not  necessarily 
a  legislative  day.  A  fortiori  a  frac- 
tion of  a  calendar  is  not  necessa- 
rily, or  even  presumptively,  a  legis- 
lative day.  By  a  long  established 
practice  of  congress,  a  calendar 
day  is  not  recognized  as  limiting  a 
session  of  any  legislative  day.  Dat- 
ing legislative  proceedings  of  a 
day's  session,  prolonged  into  the 
morning  hours  of  the  succeeding 
day,  as  of  the  date  when  the  diur- 
nal session  began,  seems  to  have 
the  sanction  of  custom  in  both 
houses  of  congress,  and  such  dat- 
ing is  not  considered  either  false  or 
unlawful." 

89  State  v.  Cherry  County,  58  Neb. 
734,  79  N.  W.  825;  Finlayson  v.  Pet- 
erson, 5  N.  D.  587,  G7  N.  W.  953,  57 
Am.  St.  Rep.  584,  33  L.  R.  A.  532; 
Dever  v.  Cornwell,  10  N.  D.  123,  86 
N.  W.  227. 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT. 


329 


ber  of  days  shall  intervene,  elapse  or  expire  after  notice  is 
given  and  before  action  is  taken,  it  is  complied  with  by  ex- 
cluding the  day  of  notice  and  including  the  day  on  which 
the  action  is  taken.90 

§  185  (112).  Some  cases,  both  English  and  American, 
make  a  distinction  between  computations  from  an  act  clone 
and  those  from  the  date  or  day  of  the  date,  including  the 
day  of  the  act  done  in  the  former  and  excluding  the  day  of 
the  date  in  the  latter.91  But  that  distinction  is  not  now 
recognized  in  England,92  and  in  but  few  of  the  states  in  this 
country.93  The  rule  is  not  so  absolute,  however,  but  that 
the  day  of  the  act  done  may  be  included  where  it  is  neces- 
sar}r  to  give  effect  to  the  obvious  intention;  and  some  cases 
assert  it  will  be  included  or  excluded,  as  occasion  may  re- 
quire, to  prevent  an  estoppel  or  save  a  forfeiture.94 


90  Logsdon  v.  Logsdon,  109  111. 
App.  194;  Forsyth  v.  Warren,  62 
111.  68;  Brown  v.  Chicago,  117  111. 
21,  7  N.  E.  108. 

91  King  v.  Adderley,  2  Doug.  463; 
Norris  v.  Hundred  of  Gawtry,  Hob. 
139;  Castle  v.  Burditt,  3T.  R.  623; 
Glassington  v.  Rawlins.  3  East,  407; 
Clayton's  Case,  5  Coke,  1;  Arnold 
v.  United  States,  9  Cranch,  104,  3 
L.  Ed.  671;  Jacobs  v.  Graham,  1 
Blackf.  392;  White  v.  Crutcher,  1 
Bush,  472:  Chiles  v.  Smith's  Heirs, 
13  B.  Mon.  460;  Wood  v.  Common- 
wealth, 11  Bush,  220. 

92  Lester  v.  Garland,  15  Ves.  248; 
Webb  v.  Fairmaner,  2  M.  &W.  474; 
Ex  parte  Fallon,  5  T.  R.  283;  Young 
v.  Higgon,  6  M.  &  W.  49;  Mercer  v. 
Ogilvy,  3  Paton,  434;  Hardy  v.  Ryle, 
9  Barn.  &  Cr.  603;  Pellew  v.  Inhab. 
of  Wonsfurd,  id.  134;  Rex  v.  Jus- 
tices, 4  Nev.  &  M.  378;  Robinson  v. 
Waddington,  13  Ad.  &  El.  (N.  S.) 
753. 

93  Calvert  v.  Williams,  34  Md.  672; 


Sheets  v.  Selden,  2  Wall.  177, 17  L. 
Ed.  822;  Owen  v.  Slatter,  26  Ala. 
551,  72  Am.  Dec.  745;  Elder,  Adm'r, 
v.  Bradley,  2  Sneed,  252;  Bern  is  v. 
Leonard,  118  Mass.  502;  Sims  v. 
Hampton,  1  S.  &  R.  411;  Kimm  v. 
Osgood,  19  Mo.  60;  Pyle  v.  Mauld- 
ing,  7  J.  J.  Marsh.  202.  In  Ken- 
tucky the  courts  include  the  ter- 
minus a  quo  when  the  computa- 
tion is  from  an  act  or  event.  Chiles 
v.  Smith's  Heirs,  13  B.  Mon.  460; 
Batman  v.  Megowan,  1  Met.  (Ky.) 
548;  White  v.  Crutcher,  1  Bush, 
473;  Wood  v.  Commonwealth,  11 
id.  220;  Handley  v.  Cunningham, 
12  id.  402:  Mooar  v.  Covington  City 
Nat.  Bank,  80  Ky.  305;  Common- 
wealth v.  Shelton,  99  Ky.  120,  35  S. 
W.  128. 

94  Windsor  v.  China.  4  Greenlf. 
298;  Presbreyv.  Williams,  15  Mass. 
193;  Williamson  v.  Farrow,  1  Bai- 
ley, 611;  Steamboat  Mary  Blane  v. 
Beehler,  12  Mo.  477;  Pugh  v.  Duke 
of  Leeds,  2  Cowp.   714;  Price  v. 


TIME    OF    TAKING     II  FECT. 


"From"  is  a  term  of  exclusion,98  and  the  words  "to," 
'•till"  or  "until,"  inclusive.98  Not  that  they  import  this  in 
all  connections,  but  in  their  use  to  indicate  the  beginning 
and  ending  of  spaces  of  time.  If  a  given  number  of  days 
is  required  to  elapse  between  one  act  and  another,  the  day 
of  the  first  is  excluded,  ami  the  day  of  the  other  included. 
An  intention  to  exclude  both  days  may  be  inferred  from 
language  clearly  expressing  that  intent;97  as  where  a  stat- 
ute or  rule  o(  court  requires  a  certain  number  of  clear  days,9S 
<>r  as  has  been  held  when  "  at  least"  a  given  number  of  clays 
quired.99 

The  rule  is  so  generally  recognized  to  exclude  the  first, 
or  terminus  a  quo,  and  to  include  the  last,  or  terminus  ad 
.  that  it  requires  no  particular  words  for  its  application.1 
The  terminus  a  quo,  so  far  as  it  is  descriptive  of  a  period  of 
lime,  is  coincident  with  the  day,  or  day  of  the  act,  from 
which  the  computation  is  to  be  made;  that  day  is  indivis- 
ible; the  period  to  be  computed  is  another  and  subsequent 
period,  which  begins  when  the  first  period  is  completed. 


Whitman,  8  Cal.  412,  417;  O'Con- 
nor v.  Towns,  1  Tex.  107;  State  v. 
Mounts,  36  W.  Va.  179,  14  S.  E.  407, 
L5  L.  R  A.  243. 
95Peables  v.  Hannaford,  18  Me. 

9«  Thomas  v.  Douglass,   2  John. 

Cas.  220:  Bunce  v.  Reed.  16  Barb. 

Dakins  v.  Wagner,  3  Dowl.  P. 

5;  Webster  v.  French,  12  111. 

Le  v.  Walker,  17  N. 

Dousman  v.  O'Malley,  1  Doug. 

(Micl  ~  tllee    v.    Ireland,    '.) 

.  154;  Cook  v.  Gray,  6  End.  335; 

:  .-on.     A'lm'r.     v.    Foster.    12 

Iowa   186;     rsabelle  v.  Iron  Cliffs 

57   Mich.  120;  Powers"  Appeal, 

504, 
:,:._r  •..  Herefordshire,  3  Barn. 
&  Al . 


"Zoueh  v.  Empsey,  4  Barn.  & 
Aid.  522;  The  Queen  v.  The  Jus- 
tices, etc.,  8  Ad.  &  El.  932;  In  re 
Prangley,  4  Ad.  &  El.  781;  O'Con- 
nor v.  Towns,  1  Tex.  107;  Walsh, 
Trustee,  v.  Boyle,  30  Md.  266;  Small 
v.  Edrick,  5  Wend.  137.  See  Co- 
lumbia Tea  Co.  v.  Haywood,  10 
Wend.  423;  Stebbins  v.  Anthony, 
5  Colo.  348,  360;  Young  v.  Higgon, 
0  M.  &  W.  49. 

1  A  rule  made  June  6th  to  plead 
in  four  days  gives  the  party  all  of 
the  10th  for  that  purpose.  Clark 
v.  Ewing,  87  111.  244;  Pepperell  v. 
Bnrrell,  2  Dowl.  P.  C.  674.  "  By  the 
January  20"  includes  that  day, 
Higley  v.  Gilmer,  3  Mont.  433,  and 
until  the  office  opens  the  next 
morning.  Oxley  v.  Bridge,  1  Doug. 
07. 


TIME   OF   TAKING    EFFECT.  331 

The  last  clay  of  that  period  is  an  indivisible  point  of  time  — 
the  terminus  ad  quern.  When  that  point  is  reached  the 
period  is  complete.     Dies  inceptus  pro  complete  hdbitur? 

§  186  (113).  Where  a  summons  or  notice  is  required  to  be 
served  or  given  a  specified  number  of  days  for  a  sale,  to  re- 
quire appearance,  or  of  a  proceeding  to  take  place  at  a  pre- 
cise time,  the  day  of  service  is  excluded;  the  sale  or  pro- 
ceeding may  be  on  the  last  of  the  required  number  of  days, 
and  the  appearance  must  be  on  or  before  that  day.3  The 
same  rule  applies  where  a  period  is  defined  to  be  computed 
from  a  given  act  or  date  where  within  such  period  a  right, 
power  or  authority  may  be  exercised,  or  beyond  which  such 
right,  power  or  authority  may  immediately  attach  and  have 
force.  The  right  to  appear  and  plead  is  a  right  so  limited 
and  defined  in  point  of  time;  if  not  claimed  and  exercised 
within  the  period  given  therefor  there  is  a  default;  this  is 
complete  on  the  expiration  of  that  period,  and  the  right  of 
the  other  party  to  proceed  thereon  attaches  at  once  on  the 
expiration  of  that  period.  At  the  same  point  of  time  one 
right  expires  and  another  becomes  operative. 

§  187  (114).  The  right  of  appeal  is  one  to  be  exercised 
within  a  determinate  period.  That  period  is  computed  from 

2  Mercer  v.  Ogilvy,  3  Paton,  434,  Seekonk  v.  Rehoboth,  8  Cusb.  371 
442,  Bemis  v.   Leonard,  118  Mass.  502 

3  Kerr  v.  Haverstick,  94  Ind.  180;  Towell  v.  Hollweg,  81  Ind.  154 
Vandenburgh  v.  Van  Rensselaer,  6  Cock  v.  Bunn,  6  John.  326;  Hoff- 
Paige,  147;  Irving  v.  Humphreys,  man  v.  Duel,  5  id.  232;  Gillespie  v. 
Hopk.  364;  White  v.  German  Ins.  White,  16  id.  117;  Cressey  v.  Parks, 
Co.,  15  Neb.  660,  20  N.  W.  30;  Mon-  75  Me.  387;  Hart's  Adm'r  v. 
roe' v.  Paddock,  75  Ind.  422;  Wash  Walker,  31  Mo.  26;  Rex  v.  Justices, 
v.  Boyle,  30  Md.  262;  Bowman  v.  4  Nev.  &  Man.  370;  City  Coun- 
Wood,  41  111.  203;  Vairin  v.  Edmon-  cil  v.  Adams,  51  Ala.  449;  Brady  v. 
son,  5Gilm.  270;  Forsyth  v.  War-  Moulton,  61  Minn.  185,  63  N.  W. 
ren',  62  111.  68;  Hall  v.  Cassidy,  25  489;  Arnold  v.  Nye,  23  Mich.  286; 
Miss.  48;  Columbia  T.  Co.  v.  Hay-  People  v.  Barry,  93  Mich.  542,  53  N. 
wood,  10  Wend.  423;  Bacon  v.  W.  785,  18  L.  R.  A.  337;  Mathew- 
Kennedy,  56  Mich.  329,  22  N.  W.  son  v.  Ham,  21  R.  I.  203,  42  At  I. 
824;  Dexter  v.  Cranston,  41  Mich.  871. 

448;  Doyle  v.  Mizner,  41  Mich.  549; 


flME    OF    i  AKl.Nti    El  l'l  OT. 


the  date  of  the  judgment.  The  day  of  the  judgment  is  ex- 
cluded in  the  computation.4  The  right  of  redemption  is 
another  to  be  exercised  within  a  certain  time,  and  it  is  com- 
puted after  a  sale.  The  day  of  sale  is  excluded  from  the 
computation.5  The  redemption  period  expires  with  the  last 
day,  and  it  is  only  after  its  expiration  that  the  sale  can  be 
treated  as  absolute.6 

Rights  of  action  maybe  asserted  during  the  period  de- 
fined in  the  statutes  of  limitation.  The  rule  would  philo- 
sophically include  in  the  period  of  limitation  every  day  in 
which  an  action  could  be  brought,  as  the  rights  of  appeal 
and  redemption  include  every  day  in  which  those  rights 
could  be  exercised.  The  right  to  sue  commences  at  once 
after  the  maturity  of  the  debt,  or  right  of  action.  The  day 
on  which  it  matures  is  excluded  for  the  same  reason  that 
the  day  of  sale  is  excluded  in  reckoning  the  time  of  redemp- 
tion, or  the  day  on  which  the  judgment  is  rendered  in  com- 
puting the  time  for  appeal.  The  sale  or  rendition  of 
judgment  are  acts  which  do  not  occupy  the  whole  day;  but 
fractions  not  being  regarded,  they  are  treated  the  same  as 
though  they  took  place  in  every  part  of  the  day,  or  the  day 
as  having  no  magnitude,  as  a  mere  point  of  time.7 

*  I  arothers    v.   Wheeler,   1   Ore.  but  simply  position  without  mag- 

3mith  v.  Cassity,  9  B.  Mon.  192,  nitude.     If  the  time  of  redemption 

i- Am.  Dee.  420  (overruled in  Chiles  were   fixed   at  one   day  after  the 

v.  Smith's  Heirs,  13  B.  Mon.  4G0);  Ex  sale,  that  day  could  not  be  the  day 

parte  Dean,  2  Cow.  60").  14  Am.  Dec.  of  the  sale;  for  it  might  be  made 

521.     And  see  Commercial  Bank  v.  at  the  last  moment  of  the  day,  and 

•  Hill,  355.  the   owner,    being  thus  prevented 

AGorham  v.  Wing.  10  Mich.  480;  from  tendering  on  that  day,  would 

White  v.  Ha  worth,  21  Mo.  App.  439.  lose    his    right.     The    time    men- 

6  People  v.  The  Sheriff  of  Broome,  tioned  must  therefore  be  the  fol- 

19  Wend  87;  Bigelow  v.  Willson,  1  lowing  day.     So  of  one  year,  or  of 

Pick.  4S5;  Cromilien    v.  Brink,  29  two  years."  Edmundson  v.  Wragg, 

1'a.  St.  522.     In  this  case  the  court  101  Pa.  St,  500. 

lay  is  always  an  indivisi-  7In    Presbrey    v.   Williams,    15 

ble  point  of  time  except  where  it  Masa  192,  the  court  say:  "By  the 

must  be  cut  up  to  prevent  injus-  statute   of   limitations   it   was   in- 

tice.     In  the  sense  of  these  statutes  tended   that  the    plaintiff  should 

it  has  neither  length  nor  breadth,  have  full  six  years,  and  no  more, 


TIME    OF    TAKING    EFFECT. 


333 


§  188  (115).  When  Sundays  are  included  or  excluded.— 

For  secular  purposes  Sundays  are  dies  non  utiles.     In  many 

constitutions  they  are  excepted  from  the  time  allowed  the 

.executive  for  action  upon  a  bill  which  is  delivered  to  him 


within  which  to  bring  his  action. 
In  this  case  he  might  have  brought 
his  action  on  the  1st  of  November, 
as  upon  a  new  promise  then  made 
(supposing  that  the  action  had  been 
previously  barred  by  the  statute), 
and  if  he  may  also  commence  it  on 
the  1st  day  of  November,  1817,  it 
would  make  seven  first  days  of  No- 
vember in  the  six  years  prescribed 
by  the  statute."  The  facts  of  this 
case  and  that  of  Menges  v.  Frick, 
73  Pa.  St.  137,  are  not  such  as  to 
fairly  illustrate  the  rule,  for  in  both 
cases  the  right  of  action  matured 
on  the  clay  included  in  the  former 
and  excluded  in  the  latter  in  com- 
puting the  period  of  limitations.  It 
is  said  that  the  new  promise  reviv- 
ing a  barred  debt  was  made  on  No- 
vember 1,  1810,  and  might  have 
been  sued  on  that  day.  The  new 
promise,  like  the  rendition  of  a 
judgment  or  sale,  though  an  act 
occupying  but  a  moment,  may  be 
the  first  or  last  moment  of  the 
twenty- four  hours.  As  a  fact  from 
which  time  is  reckoned  they  oc- 
cupy the  day  —  the  day  is  but  a 
point  of  time,  In  reckoning  a  pe- 
riod from  that  act,  it  is  considered 
in  law  that  there  is  not  a  moment 
of  the  day  of  such  act  subsequent 
to  it.  The  act  and  the  day  are  iden- 
tical in  time  —  space  —  a  mere 
point.  We  may  suppose  a  new 
promise  made  which  revives  a  debt 
and  an  action  brought  on  it  the  same 
day;  so  we  may  suppose  a  redemp- 
tion from  a  sale  on  the  day  of  the 


sale,  or  an  appeal  from  a  judgment 
on  the  day  when  it  was  rendered. 
Then  to  protect  the  right  of  suit, 
redemption  or  appeal,  a  court  would 
disregard  the  fiction  that  there  are 
no  fractions  of  a  clay  and  ascertain 
if  the  action  was  brought  after  the 
right  accrued,  and  so  in  the  other 
cases  whether  the  right  exercised 
existed.  See  ante,  §  179.  Paul  v. 
Stone,  113  Mass.  27,  oonfirms  this 
view.  The  statute  barred  an  action 
against  an  administrator  unless 
commenced  within  two  years 
"  from  the  time  of  his  giving  bond." 
The  court  adopt  the  language  of 
Wilde,  J.,  in  Bigelow  v.  Willson,  1 
Pick.  485,  that  "the  words  'time of 
executing  the  deed,'  used  in  the 
statute,  mean,  in  legal  acceptation, 
the  day  of  delivery,  which  is  the 
same  as  'the  date 'or  'the  day  of 
the  date.' "  The  following  cases  are 
to  the  same  effect:  Steamboat  Mary 
Blane  v.  Beehler,  12  Mo.  477;  Viti  v. 
Dixon,  id.  479;  Blackman  v.  Near- 
ing,  43  Conn.  56,  21  Am.  Rep.  634; 
Cornell  v.  Moulton,  3  Denio,  12. 

The  case  of  McGraw  v.  Walker, 
2  Hilt.  404,  is  not  like  the  others. 
There  a  note  was  pa3Table  on  the 
1st  day  of  October  and  therefore 
became  clue  on  the  4th.  At  the 
expiration  of  that  day  an  action 
accrued  and  suit  couid  have  been 
brought  on  the  5th.  The  statute 
commenced  running  on  anil  in- 
cluding that  day  — and  lierce  ex- 
pired with  the  4th  of  October  in 
the  sixth  year  thereafter  —  unless 


TIME    OF    TAKING     EFF1  OT. 


after  its  passage  by  the  two  branches  of  the  legislature, 
re  that  is  the  ease,  Sundays  are  excluded  from  the  com- 
putation.   Thus,  under  Buch  a  provision  in  the  federal  con- 
stitution allowing  ten  days,  excepting  Sundays,  an  act  so 


the  language  Of  tin1  statute  of  lim- 
itations exoludea  the  firal  day  upon 
which  an  action  could  be  brought 
it  requires  an  action  to  be  brought 
within  the  prescribed  period 
"after  the  cause  of  action  ac- 
crued."  The  inquiry  narrowly  is, 
a  party  liave  the  prescribed 
1  and  an  additional  day  to 
bring  his  action?  It  is  the  writer's 
opinion  that  the  6rs1  day  when  he 
can  bring  suit  is  the  first  day  after 
t lie  accrual  of  the  action  and  part 
of  the  prescribed  period  of  limita- 
tion. 

If  the  computation  must  be  made 
wards  from  a  day  or  proceed- 
ing, it  is  still  a  period  to  be  ascer- 
1  by  excluding  one  day  and 
including    another.      Though    the 
day  from   which  the  computation 
has  to  be  made  is  the  same  sort 
<lies  a  quo,  in  the  reckoning,  it  is 
yet  the  expiration  of  the   period. 
The  same  rule  of  computation  ap- 
plies:   such   periods  are  not  con- 
strued to  be  periods  of  clear  days; 
one  terminus  is  included  and  the 
other  excluded.     While   it   would 
.  more  philosophical,  and   pre- 
a  symmetry  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  rule  which  oxcludi 

a  quo,  as  in  Hagerman  v. 
1  o..  S>  Ohio  St. 
I-1'',  still    the   result   is   the 
when   the  terms    are    trans] 
Northrop  v.  Coop*  r. 
In  a  very  learned  and  elaborate 
Btebbins  v.  Anthony,  5 
,348,  Beck,  J.,  remarks  that 


"The  rule  of  the  common  law,  and 
the  rule  generally  adopted  by  the 

courts  of  tin1  several  states,  is  to  in- 
clude one  day  and  to  exclude  the 
other,  some  courts  including  the 
first  day  in  the  specified  time  in 
the  computation,  and  excluding 
the  last  day.  Home  courts  exclude 
the  first  day.  and  include  the  last, 
while  other  courts  vary  their  prac- 
tice according  to  the  phraseology 
of  the  statute  under  consideration, 
in  some  instances  including  the 
last  day,  and  in  others  including 
both  days."  He  concludes  that  the 
rule  sustained  by  the  general  cur- 
rent of  modern  authority  is  that 
"where  a  statute  requires  an  art 
to  be  performed  a  certain  number 
of  days  prior  to  a  day  named,  or 
within  a  definite  period  after  a  day 
or  event  specified;  or  where  time 
is  to  be  computed  either  prior  to  a 
day  named  or  subsequent  to  a  day 
named,  the  usual  rule  of  computa- 
tion is  to  exclude  one  day  of  the 
designated  period  and  to  include 
the  other."  Bowman  v.  Wood,  41  III. 
203;  Vairin  v.  Edmonson,  5  Gilm. 
270;  Forsyth  v.  Warren,  62  111.  68; 
Smith  v.  Rowles,  85  Ind.  201; 
Rhoades  v.  Delaney,  50  Ind.  253; 
Loughridge  v.  Huntington,  56  Ind. 
251;  Mered ith  v.  Chancey,  59  Ind. 
466;  Fox  v.  Allensville,  46  Ind.  31; 
Hill  v.  Pressley,  96  Ind.  447;  Swett 
v.  Sprague,  55  Me.  190;  Gantz  v. 
Toles,  40  Mich.  725;  Dexter  v.  Shep- 
ard,  117  Mass.  480;  Frothingham  v. 
March,  1  Mass.  247;  Early  v.  Doe  ex 


TIME   OF    TAKING    EFFECT. 


335 


passed  and  submitted  to  the  president  on  Saturday,  the  19th 
of  February,  would,  in  case  of  his  non-action,  take  effect  on 
the  3d  of  March  ensuing.8  In  the  absence  of  a  positive 
written  law  excluding  Sundays  from  a  period  of  days  pre- 
scribed for  any  purpose,  they  are  counted,  even  though  the 
period  ends  on  Sunday.9  Where  a  period  less  than  a  week 
is  prescribed  by  statute,  it  has  sometimes  been  held  that  an 
intervening  Sunday  should  not  be  counted,  nor  if  it  be  the 


dem.  Homans,  16  How.  615,  14  L. 
Ed.  1079;. Dexter  v.  Cranston,  41 
Mich.  448,  2  N.  W.  674;  Scrafford  v. 
Gladwin  Supervisors,  41  Mich.  647; 
Powers'  Appeal,  29  Mich.  504: 
Bacon  v.  Kennedy,  56  Mich.  329,  22 
N.  W.  824;  Isabelle  v.  Iron  Cliffs 
Co.,  57  Mich.  120,  23  N.  W.  613. 

But  in  Ward  v.  Walters,  63  Wis. 
44.  22  N.  W.  844,  Taylor,  J.,  thus 
states  the  doctrine:  "In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  statutory  provision 
governing  the  computation  of 
time,  the  authorities  are  uniform 
that  where  an  act  is  required  to  be 
done  a  certain  number  of  days  or 
weeks  before  a  certain  other  day 
upon  which  another  act  is  to  be 
clone,  the  day  upon  which  the  first 
act  is  to  be  done  must  be  excluded 
from  the  computation  and  the 
whole  number  of  the  dajrs  or 
weeks  must  intervene  before  the 
day  for  doing  the  second  act." 
The  same  court,  in  Wright  v.  For- 
restal,  65  Wis.  348,  27  N.  W.  52, 
speaking  by  the  same  learned 
judge,  said  "The  language  [of  the 
statute)  is:  'The  resolution  shall 
lie  over  at  least  four  weeks  after 
its  introduction,  and  no  action 
shall  be  taken  by  the  common 
council,  if  within  that  time  a  re- 
monstrance,' etc.  The  question  was 
presented  to  the  council  when  the 


four  weeks  expired  so  that  they 
might  act  on  the  same.  They  evi- 
dently construed  it,  as  men  ordi- 
narily would,  that  a  week  was  the 
period  of  time  extending  from 
Monday  of  one  week  to  Monday  of 
the  next  week  following,  and  not 
until  Tuesday  of  such  week,  and 
that  the  resolution,  if  introduced 
on  Monday,  had  laid  over  four 
weeks  when  the  fourth  Monday 
thereafter  had  arrived,  and  that 
they  were  at  liberty  to  act  upon  it 
then.  We  think  this  is  the  natural 
construction  of  the  act,  and  clearly 
within  the  intention  of  the  legis- 
lature." 

8  See  Price  v.  Whitman,  8  CaL  412. 

9 Taylor  v.  Palmer,  31  Cal.  244; 
Miles  v.  McDermott,  id.  272;  Chi- 
cago v.  Vulcan  Iron  Works,  93  111. 
222;  Ex  parte  Dodge,  7  Cow.  147; 
King  v.  Dowdall,  2  Sandf.  131; 
Anonymous,  2  Hill,  375;  Harrison 
v.  Sager,  27  Mich.  476;  Haley  v. 
Young,  134  Mass.  364;  Broome  v. 
Wellington,  1  Sandf.  660;  Ready 
v.  Chamberlin,  52  How.  Pr.  123 
National  Bank  v.  Williams,  46  Mo 
17;  Creswell  v.  Green,  14  East,  537 
Ex  parte  Simpkin,  105  Eng.  C.  L, 
392;  Peacock  v.  Regina,  93  id.  264 
Rowberry  v.  Morgan,  9  Ex.  730, 
See  Barker  v.  Addis,  4  Pa.  St.  515 
Sims  v.  Hampton,  1  S.  &  R.  411. 


uv,  i.   01     iakim,    BFFEOT. 

last  day  of  the  period.1'    This  appears  to  bo  the  settled  rule 

in  Massachusetts.11  Jt  is  not  universally  adhered  to  as  to 
Is  of  more  than  one  or  two  days.1-  Subject  to  this 
qualification,  where  the  last  day  is  Sunday,  any  act  required 
by  statute  to  be  done  within  the  period  must  be  done  be- 
fore that  day.  For  such  aets  the  period  practically  ends  on 
the  preceding  day.13  In  Pennsylvania  a  different  rule  pre- 
vails.   There,  in  such  case,  theact  may  be  done  on  Monday." 

In  Hughes  v.  Griffiths,13  Erie,  C.  J.,  said:  "I  ara  of  opinion 
that  when  the  last  of  the  seven  days  [a  statutory  period] 
happens  to  fall  on  a  day  which  is  declared  to  be  a  holiday, 
and  on  which  the  court  cannot  act,  the  party  has  until  the 
next  following  day  on  which  the  court  can  act  to  issue  the 
writ.  It  seems  to  me  that  a  distinction  between  a  thing 
which  is  to  be  done  by  the  court  and  a  mere  act  of  a  party 
is  maintainable."16 

If  the  period  is  fixed  by  contract,  or  is  a  rule  of  court 
practice,  and  it  ends  on  Sunday,  that  day 
is  excluded,  and  tiie  period  will  be  deemed  to  include  Mon- 
day.17    When  the  time  for  the  performance  of  a  contract, 

W  Anonymous.  2  Hill,  375;  Drake  N.  W.  706;  Cressey  v.  Parks,  75  Me. 

v.  Andrews.  2  Mich.  203;  National  387;  State  v.  Wheeler,  64  id.  532; 

Bank  v.  Williams,  46  Mo.  17;  Whip-  Carvill  v.  Additon,62id.  459;  Tuttle 

pie  v.  Williams,   4   How.   Pr.    23;  v.  Gates.  24  id.  395;  Hales  v.  Owen, 

Watnen  v.  Beaumont,  11  East,  271;  2  Salk.  625;  Asmole  v.  Goodwin,  id. 

Rex  v.  Elkins,  4  Burr.  2130;  State  624;    Creswoll  v.  Green,  14  East, 

v.  Michel,  52  La.  Ann.  936,  27  So.  537;   Peacock  v.  Regina.  93  Eng. 

78  Am.  St  Rep.  364;  Diesing  C.   L.   262;    Taylor  v.   Corbiere,   8 

v.  Reilly,  77  Mo.  App.  450;  Barnes  How.  Pr.  385. 

v.  Eddy,  12  R.  1.  25;  West  v.  West,  13Ex  parte  Simpkin,  105  Eng.  C. 

20  R.  I.  464,  40  Atl.  6.  L.  392;  Queen   v.  The  Justices,  7 

ii  Alderman  v.  Phelps,  15  Mass.  Jurist.  396;  Alderman  v.  Phelps.  15 

2-r,;   Thayer  v.  Felt,  4  Pick.  354;  Mass.  225;  Cressey  v.  Parks,  75  Me. 

Penniman  v.  Cole,  8  Met.  496;  Mc-  387. 

Iniffe  v.   Wheelock,  1   Gray,   600;  "Edmundson  v.  Wragg,  104  Pa. 

Ilannum  v.   Turtellott,   10  Allen,  St.  500,  502,  49  Am.  Rep.  590. 

191;    Cunningham   v.  Mahan,  112  «  106  Eng.  C.  L,  332. 

.  5a  1B  See  Harrison  v.  Sager,  27  Mich, 

«  Harrison  v.  Sager,  27  Mich.  476;  470. 

Si  monson  v.  Durf ee,  50  Mich.  80, 14  17  Cock  v.  Bunn,  6  John.  326;  Borst 


TIME    OF   TAKING    EFFECT. 


337 


according  to  its  terras,  expires  on  Sunday,  a  performance 
on  the  following  Monday  is  good.18  There  is,  however,  an 
important  exception  to  this  rule.  "Where  days  of  grace  are 
allowed  by  the  law  merchant,  and  the  last  day  of  grace  falls 
on  Sunday,  the  act  for  which  such  days  are  allowed  must 
be  done  on  Saturday.19 


v.  Griffin,  5  Wend.  84;  Bissell  v. 
Bissell,  11  Barb.  96;  Anonymous,  1 
Strange,  86;  Bullock  v.  Lincoln,  2 
id.  914;  Studley  v.  Sturt,  id.  782; 
Lee  v.  Carlton,  3  T.  R.  642;  Solo- 
mons v.  Freeman,  4  id.  557;  Har- 
bord  v.  Perigal,  5  id.  210;  Asmole 
v.  Goodwin,  2  Salk.  624;  Shadwell 
v.  Angel,  1  Burr.  56;  Simonson  v. 
Durfee,  50  Mich.  80,  14  N.  W.  706; 
Morris  v.  Barrett,  97  Eng.  C.  L.  139; 
Mark's  Ex'r  v.  Russell,  40  Pa.  St. 
372;  Lewis  v.  Calor,  1  Fost.  &  Fin. 
306;  Muirv.  Galloway,  61  Cal.  498. 
22 


See  Hughes  v.  Griffiths,  106  Eng. 
C.  L.  332. 

18  Hammond  v.  American  Ins. 
Co.,  10  Gray,  306;  Salter  v.  Burt,  20 
Wend.  205,  32  Am.  Dec.  530;  Avery 
v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  69,  7  Am.  Dec. 
240;  Post  v.  Garrow,  18  Neb.  682,  26 
N.  W.  580.  But  see  Kilgour  v. 
Miles,  6  Gill  &  J.  268. 

19  Anonymous,  2  Hill,  375;  Camp- 
bell v.  International  Life,  4  Bosw. 
317;  Howard  v.  Ives,  1  Hill,  263; 
Salter  v,  Burt,  20  Wend.  205,  32 
Am.  Dec.  530. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

REQUIREMENT  OF  GENERAL  LAWS  AND  THAT  THEY  BE  OF 
UNIFORM  OPERATION. 

§  189  (lift).   The  constitutional  requirements. —  It  is 

the  aim  of  the  government  to  provide  just  and  equal  laws, 
and  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  enaetments  which  are 
not  such.  The  accomplishment  of  this  purpose  is  in  part 
intended  to  be  secured  by  the  framers  of  the  constitutions 
by  adopting  therein  certain  provisions,  mandatory  to  the 
legislature,  prohibiting  special  or  local  laws  on  certain  enu- 
merated subjects,  and  as  to  all  others,  either  where  general 
laws  exist,  or  where  they  can  be  made  applicable. 

Another  provision  adopted  in  several  states  requires  that 
all  laws  of  a  general  nature  shall  have  a  uniform  operation 
thronghont  the  state.  This  requirement  is  not  confined  to 
the  subjects  enumerated  in  the  prohibition  of  special  or  local 
laws;  nor  is  it  a  mere  repetition  in  substance  of  the  general 
injunction  to  pass  general  laws  where  they  can  be  made 
applicable. 

Laws  of  a  general  nature  are  those  which  relate  to  sub- 
jects of  that  nature,  and  deal  generally  with  them.  The 
requirement  involves  the  question  what  is  such  a  subject, 
and  how  comprehensively  it  must  be  treated  in  legislative 
acts.  Laws  to  which  the  requirement  is  applicable  must 
be  so  framed  as  to  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the 
state. 

190(117).  The  constitutional  provisions  mandatory. — 
They  are  mandatory  to  the  legislature;  and  a  compliance 
with    them    is    necessary   to   the   validity   of  legislation.1 

i  State  v.  Spell  mire.  07  Ohio  St  77,  65  N.  E.  619.     See  Stuart  v.  Kirley, 
ft  345,  -1  N.  W.  117. 


GENEKAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


339 


Whether  a  particular  act  is  conformable  or  not  is  a  judicial 
question;  that  is,  the  courts  have  power  to  determine  it, 
and  they  will  hold  any  act  void,  which  violates  either  of 
these  regulations,2  with  one  exception.  This  exception  is 
the  question  whether  on  a  non-enumerated  subject,  not  of 
ft  general  nature,  a  general  law  can  be  made  applicable. 
That  is  a  legislative  question.  When  a  special  act  has  been 
passed,  in  such  a  case,  it  implies  that  in  the  legislative 
judgment  a  general  act  could  not  be  made  applicable.  It 
is  a  conclusive  implication,  and  that  judgment  is  final;  the 
courts  will  not  enter  at  all  upon  the  inquiry;  the}^  will  ac- 
cept the  judgment  of  the  legislature  as  exercised  within  its 
exclusive  legislative  domain,  and  give  it  effect.3    These  re- 


2Falk,  Ex  parte,  42  Ohio  St.  683; 
State  v.  Powers,  38  id.  54;  State  ex 
reL  v.  Supervisors,  25  Wis.  !i39; 
State  ex  rel.  v.  Riordan.  24  id.  484. 

3  Gentile  v.  State,  29  Ind.  409; 
Marks  v.  Trustees  of  Purdue  Uni- 
versity, 37  id.  161;  Kelly,  Treas- 
urer, v.  State,  92  id.  236;  State  v. 
fucker,  46  id.  8">5;  State  v.  County 
Court,  50  Mo.  317, 11  Ana.  Rep.  415; 
State  v.  County  Court,  51  Mo.  82; 
"Sail  v.  Bray,  id.  288;  St.  Louis  v. 
Shields,  62  id.  247;  Brown  v.  Den- 
ver, 7  Colo.  305,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  630;  State  v.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan. 
178;  Jones  v.  Jones,  95  Ala.  443,  10 
Bo.  89,  18  L.  R.  A.  95;  Powell  v. 
Durden,  61  Ark.  21,  31  S.  W.  740; 
People  v.  McFadden,  81  Cal.  489,  22 
Pac.  851,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  66;  Peo- 
ple v.  Mullender,  132  Cal.  217,  64 
Pac.  299;  Wilson  v.  Sanitary  Trus- 
tees, 133  111.443,27  N.  E.  203;  Knopf 
v.  People,  185  111.  20,  57  N.  E.  22,  76 
Am.  St.  Rep.  17;  Sanitary  District 
v.  Ray,  199  III.  61,  64  N.  E.  1048,  93 
Am.  St.  Rep.  102;  Mt.  Vernon  v. 
Evans  &  H.  Fire  Brick  Co.,  204  111. 
32,  68  N.  E  208;  State  v.  Kolsem, 


130  Ind.  434,  29  N.  E.  595, 14  L.  R.  A. 
566;  Bell  v.  Maish,  137  Ind.  226,  36 
N.  E.  358;  Young  v.  Board  of 
Com'rs,  137  Ind.  323,  36  N.  E.  1118 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  State,  142  Ind 
428,  41  N.  E.  937;  Board  of  Com'rs 
v.  Brown,  147  Ind.  476, 46  N.  E.  908 
Smith  v.  Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Co. 
158  Ind.  425,  63  N.  E.  849:  State  v, 
Sanders,  42  Kan.  228,  21  Pac.  1073 
Hughes  v.  Milligan,  42  Kan.  396,  22 
Pac.  313;  State  v.  Lewilling,  51 
Kan.  562,  33  Pac.  425;  Eichholtz  v. 
Martin,  53  Kan.  486,  36  Pac.  1064; 
In  re  Greer,  58  Kan.  268,  48  Pac. 
950;  Chesney  v.  McClintock,  61 
Kan.  94,  58  Pac.  993;  Campbell  v. 
Labette  Co.  Com'rs,  63  Kan.  377,  65 
Pac.  679;  Ash  v.  Thorp,  65  Kan.  60, 
68  Pac.  1067;  Edwards  v.  Her  brand- 
son,  2  N.  D.  270,  50  N.  W.  970,  14  L. 
R.  A.  725;  Johnson  v.  Mocabee,  1 
Okl.  204,  32  Pac.  336;  Stuart  v.  Kir- 
ley,  12  S.  D.  245,  81  N.  W.  147; 
Guthrie  Nat.  Bank  v.  Guthrie,  173 
U.  S.  528,  19  S.  C.  Rep.  513,  43  L. 
Ed.  796;  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Os- 
wego, 59  Fed.  58,  7  C.  C.  A.  669,  19 
U.  S.  App.  321;  Rathbone  v.  Kiowa 


34U 


GKN'KKAL    AM>    BPKOIAL    LAWS. 


quirements  are  prospective,  and  do  not  apply  to  or  affect 
the  valid  ty  of  exist  ag  statul  s.'  It  has  been  held  that 
they  app  v  to  municipalities  in  the  passage  of  ordinances.5 

I  M  lis.  When  a  general  law  on  the  subject  is  in 
existence.—  It'  a  general  law  exists  which  is  applicable  to  a 

(Ct,  the  question  whether  such  a  law  can  he  made  appli- 
cable is  resolved.  The  legislature  has  by  the  enactment  of 
a  general  law  practically  decided  the  question.  Hence  if, 
while  such  a  general  law  is  in  force,  a  special  or  local  law 
is  passed   affecting  the   same   subject  and   modifying  the 


•re,  83  Fed.  125,  27  G  C.  A. 
Seward  Co.  Com'rs  v.  iEtna 
'ms.  Co.,  90  Fed.  222. 32  G  C.  A. 

'ra  v.  Yan- 
.  il.->  Fed.  866.  53  G  C.  A.  192. 
It  i-  held  to  be  a  judicial  ques- 
tion in  South  Carolina,  whose  con- 
stitution provides  that  all  its  pro 
visions     shall     be    construed     as 
man  latory.     Carolina  Grocery  Co. 
v.  1    met,  61  S.  C.  205,  :J9  S.  EL  881; 
v.  Hammond,  66  S.  C.  219; 
State  v.   Hammond,  66  S.  C.  300; 
•.    Brock,  66  S.  C.  357.  By  the 
iri  constitution  of  1875  this 
question   is  made   judicial.     It  is 
tive  by  the  terms  of  the  New 
York  constitution,  section  1. article 
VIII.     Mosier  v.   Hilton,  15  Barb. 
united  States  Tr.  Co.  v.  Brady, 
irb.  119;  People  v.  Bowen,  21 
N.    Y.  517,  -30  Barb.  24.     The  New 
Jersey  constitution  in  this  respeel 
is  like  that  of  New  York.    And  see 
If.  ae  v.  Pegg,  7  Nev.  23:  Clarke  v. 
Irwin,  •">  Nev.  12};  State  v.  Squires, 
26Iowa,340;Krausev.Durbrow,127 
0  Pac.    138;  Richman  v. 
re,  77  Iowa.  518,  42  N.  W. 
422,  14  Am.  St  Rep.  308,  4LR.i 
440.     In  State  v.  Granneman,  132 


Ma  326,  33  S.  W.  784,  an  act  pro- 
hibiting barbering  on  Sunday  was 
held  void  because  a  general  law 
prohibiting  all  labor  on  Sunday 
could  be  made  applicable 

4  State  v.  Barbee,  3  Ind.  258; 
Brown  v.  State,  23  Md.  503;  Nevada 
School  Dist.  v.  Shoecraft,  88  Cal. 
372.  26  Pac.  211;  Smith  v.  McDer- 
mott,  93  Cal.  421,  29  Pac.  34;  Piper 
v.  Gunther,  95  Ky.  115,  23  S.  W. 
872:  O'Mahoney  v.  Bullock,  97  Ky. 
774,  31  S.  W.  878;  Pearce  v.  Mason 
Co.,  99  Ky.  357,  35  S.  W.  1122; 
Thompson  v.  Commonwealth,  103 
Ky.  685,  16  S.  W.  698;  Black  River 
Imp.  Co.  v.  Hoi  way.  87  Wis.  584,  59 
N.  W.  126.  But  in  Travelers'  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Oswego,  59  Fed.  58,  7  C.  C.  A. 
669,  a  special  law  to  provide  for 
compromising  and  refunding  the 
bonded  indebtedness  of  Oswego 
township  was  held  valid,  though  a 
general  law  existed  authorizing 
every  county  and  township  to  com- 
promise and  refund  its  indebted- 
ness. 

5Norristown  v.  Norristown  Pass. 
Ky.  Co.,  148  Pa  St.  87,  23  Atl.  1060; 
Tacoma  v.  Krech,  15  Wash.  296,  46 
Pac.  255. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  Zil 

general  law,  the  question  of  its  validity  is  judicial;  it  will 
be  held  invalid  in  the  case  supposed,  for,  an  applicable 
general  law  being  in  existence,  it  is  no  longer  a  question 
whether  such  a  law  can  be  made  applicable;  therefore  the 
special  or  local  law  is  prohibited.6  The  constitution  of 
Georgia  provides  that  "no  special  law  shall  be  enacted  in 
any  case  for  which  provision  has  been  made  by  an  existing 
general  law."  7  This  is  declaratory  of  the  principle  just 
announced.  By  virtue  of  this  provision  a  special  law  on  a 
subject  already  covered  by  a  general  law  is  void.8  A  gen- 
eral local  option  law  renders  void  a  local  act  regulating  the 
sale  of  liquor.9  And  where  a  general  law  permits  the  sale 
of  domestic  wines,  a  local  act  forbidding  the  sale  of  all  in- 
toxicating liquors  is  void.10  Under  such  a  constitutional 
provision,  if  no  general  law  exists,  local  or  special  laws  may 
be  passed.11  Under  a  similar  constitutional  provision  in 
Maryland,  an  election  law  applicable  to  about  three-fourths 
of  the  counties  of  the  state  was  held  valid  though  a  gen- 
eral  election  law  applicable  to  the  whole  state  was  in  exist- 
ence.12 Where  a  local  law  is  invalid  when  passed  because 
in  conflict  with  a  general  law  on  the  subject,  it  is  not  made 

6  State  exrel.  v.  Supervisors,  25  E.  878;  O'Brien  v.  State,  109  Ga.  51, 

Wis.  339;'  State  ex  rel.  v.  Riordan,  35  S.  E.  112;   Embry   v.   State,  109 

24  id.  484;   Walsh  v.  Dousman,  28  Ga.  101,   35   S.  E.   116;   Tinsley   v. 

id.    541;  Pasadena   v.  Stimson,   91  State,  109  Ga.  822,  35  S.  E.  303. 

Cal.  238,  27  Pac.  604;  Crabb  v.  State,  »  Mathis  v.  Jones,  84  Ga.   804, 11 

88  Ga.  584,  15  S.  E.  455;   Henderson  S.  E.  1018;    Camp  v.  Tompkins,  84 

v.  Koenig,  168  Mo.  356,  68  S.  W.  72;  Ga.  812,  11  S.  E.  1021. 

State   v.  Anslinger,  171  Mo.  600,  71  10  Papworth  v.  State,  103  Ga.  36, 

S.  W.  1041;  Rathbone  v.  Kiowa  Co.  31  S.  E.  402;  Griffin  v.  Eaves,  114 

Com'rs,  73  Fed.  395.  Ga.  65,  39  S.  E.  913;  Harris  v.  State, 

?  Const.  1877,  art.  1,  sec.  4.  114  Ga.  436,  40  S.  E.  315. 

sSmith  v.  State,  90  Ga.  133,  15  S.  »  Lorentz  v.  Alexander,  87  Ga. 

E.  682;  Caldwell  v.  State,  101  Ga.  444,  13  S.  E.  632;  Benning  v.  Smith, 

557,  29  S.  E.  263;  Bagley  v.  State,  108  Ga.  259,  32  S.  E.  823. 

103  Ga.  388,   29  S.  E.    123,  32  S.  E.  «Lankford  v.  County  Com-^,73 

414;  Aycock  v.  Rutledge,   104  Ga.  Md.  105,  20  Atl.  1017,   11  L.   R.  A. 

533,  30  S.  E.  815;  Atlanta  Savings  491. 
Bank  v.  Spencer,  107  Ga.  629,  33  S. 


3  |-J  B  \l,    \M>   BPBOIAL    laws. 

valid  by  the  subsequent  amendment  of  the  general  law  so 
aa  i"  avoid  such  conflict.11 

The  injunction  to  pass  general  laws  when  they  can  be  made 
applicable  is  imperative  as  to  subjects  of  a  general  nature, 

■  laws  of  a  general  nature  arc  required  to  have  a  uni- 
form operation.  The  questions  affecting  the  validity  of 
such  laws  arc  judicial;  the  courts  must  determine  what  are 
laws  of  a  general  nature  which  must  be  so  framed  as  to  op- 
crate  with  uniformity.14 

The  enumerated  subjects  must  be  dealt  with  by  general 
laws;  the  constitutional  provision  determines  conclusively 
that  they  can  be  so  dealt  with.  All  special  legislation  being 
prohibited,  no  other  than  general  laws  can  be  valid.  Under 
the  provision  prohibiting  special  or  local  laws  where  a 
general  law  exists  which  isapplicable,  the  validity  of  a  special 
or  local  law  intended  to  operate  in  modification  of  an  exist- 

n neral  law  will  be  determined  by  the  courts  as  obvi- 

ously  a  judicial  question,  for  it  depends  wholly  upon  judi- 
cial elements  —  the  meaning  of  the  constitutional  provision, 
the  scope  and  effect  of  the  general  law,  and  the  sense  and 
proposed  effect  of  the  special  or  local  act. 

L92  (110).  Local  and  special  laws  valid  if  not  for- 
bidden.—  Independently  of  these  provisions  the  legislature 

power  to  pass  local  and  special  laws.     A  mere  want  of 
symmetry  in  the  legislation  of  a  state,  or  the  mere  circum- 
stance that  all  parts  of  a  state  are  not  subjected  to  the  same 
ations,  or  that  statutes  are  not  made  to  embrace  all 

Mibjects  to  which  they  might  extend  if  the  law-maker 
so  desired,  is  no  objection.15  As  said  by  a  learned  author: 
"  Laws  public  in  their  objects  may,  unless  express  constitu- 

i'  Jones  v.   McCaskill,    112     Ga.  17  Am.  Rep.  405;  State  v.  McCann, 

.  a  i;.  724  21   Ohio  St.  198;  Merritt  v.  Knife 

M  See  post,  %  194  Falls    B.    Corp'n,    34    Minn.    245; 

U  Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20  Cal.  County  of  Hennepin  v.  Jones,  18 

Mate  v.  Duffy,  7  Nev.  342,  8  Minn.    109;    Bruce    v.   County    of 

Am.   Rep.  713;  Cory   v.  Carter,  48  Dodge,  20  id.  38& 

B27;  Ward  v.  Flood,  48  Cal.  36, 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  343 

tional  provision  forbids,  be  either  general  or  local  in  their 
application;  they  may  embrace  many  subjects  or  one,  and 
they  may  extend  to  all  citizens  or  be  confined  to  particular 
classes,  as  minors,  married  women,  or  traders,  or  the  like. 
The  authority  that  legislates  for  the  state  at  large  must  de- 
termine whether  particular  rules  shall  extend  to  the  whole 
state  and  all  its  citizens,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  a  subdi- 
vision of  the  state,  or  to  a  single  class  of  its  citizens  only."16 
Where  the  constitution  provided  that  "  the  legislature  shall 
have  power  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  an  additional 
number  of  justices  of  the  peace  in  incorporated  towns,"  it 
was  held  to  be  an  express  authority  to  pass  special  laws  on 
the  subject;  although  the  constitution  contained  the  usual 
provisions  as  to  special  legislation.17 

There  are  fundamental  principles  secured  by  all  the  con- 
stitutions, and  elementary  in  the  very  definition  of  the  "  law 
of  the  land,"  which  impose  restrictions  upon  the  power  to 
enact  partial,  invidious  and  unequal  laws;18  but  it  would  be 
foreign  to  the  present  purpose  to  enter  upon  that  subject. 

§  193.  Peculiar  provisions  in  South  Carolina. —  The 
constitution  of  South  Carolina  forbids  local  and  special  laws 
in  enumerated  cases,  and  in  all  other  cases  where  a  general 
law  can  be  made  applicable,  with  a  proviso  "  that  nothing 
contained  in  this  section  shall  prohibit  the  general  assembly 

wCooley's  Const.  Lirn.  488;  State  189;  Pope  v.  Phifer,  3  Heisk.  701; 

v.  Piper,  17  Neb.  614,  24  N.  W.  204;  Mayor  v.  Dearmon,  2  Sneed,  121; 

Smith  v.  Dunn,  64  CaL  164.  Daly  v.  State,  13  Lea,  228;  Burk- 

17  State  v.  Nine  Justices,  90  Tenn.  holtz  v.  State,  16  id.  71:  Woodard 

722,  18  S.  W.  393.  v.  Brien,   14  id.  520;   Memphis  v. 

is  Lewis  v.  Webb,  3  Me.  326;  Dur-  Fisher,  9  Baxt.  239;  State  v.  Duffy, 

ham  v.  Lewiston,  4  id.  140;    Hoi-  7  Nev.  342,  8  Am.   Rep.  713;  Grif- 

den  v.  James,  11  Mass.  396,  6  Am.  fin   v.  Cunningham,  20  Gratt.  31; 

Dec.  174;  Bull  v.  Conroe,  13  Wis.  Dorsey    v.     Dorsey,     37    Md.     64, 

238-244;  Wally  v.  Kennedy,  2  Yerg.  11   Am.  Rep.  528;  Lawson   v.  Jef- 

554,  24  Am.  Dec.  511:  Vanzant  v.  fries,  47  Miss.  686,  12  Am.  Rep.  342; 

Waddel,  2  Yerg.  259;  State  Bank  v.  Wilder  v.  Railway  Co.,  70  Mich.  382, 

Cooper,  id.  605;  Ragio  v.  State,  86  38  N.  W.  289;  Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10 

Tenn.   272.  6  S.  W.  401;  Budd   v.  Fla.  238;  Arnold   v.  Kelley,  5  W. 

State,  3  Humph.  483,  39  Am.  Dec.  Va.  446;  Cooley,  Const.  L.  487. 


8  11  i:  \i     am'   BP1  DIAL    laws. 

from  enaoting  special  provisions  in  general  laws."  In  con- 
Btrning  those  provisions  the  court  lias  held  as  follows:  "It 
is  manifest  from  even  a  casual  reading  of  the  constitution, 
that l  local  orspecial  laws "  an .1  'special  provisions  in  general 
laws' do  not  mean  the  same  thing,  and  that  they  were  in- 
i  nded  to  be  construed  in  such  a  manner  that  neither  would 
practically  destroy  the  force  of  the  other.  .  .  .  ]n  order 
that  a  law  may  be  general  it  must  be  of  force  in  every 
county  in  the  state,  and,  while  it  may  contain  special  pro- 
as making  its  effect  different  in  certain  counties,  those 
counties  cannot  be  exempt  from  its  entire  operation."  19 

§194(120).  What  are  general  laws — General  prin- 
ciples.—  The  important  questions,  under  these  constitutional 
provisions,  are:  what  are  laws  of  a  general  nature  which 
must  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state?  And 
what  aregeru  ral  laws  as  distinguished  from  special &nd  local 
laws?  The  descriptive  term  "general  laws"  has  been  in  use 
for  a  long  time.  In  the  common-law  classification  of  stat- 
utes it  applies  to  and  includes  all  public  acts;  those  of  which 
the  courts  take  judicial  notice;  all  except  private  acts.  This 
classification  will  be  more  particularly  discussed  in  another 
place.  It  is  obvious  that  this  term  is  not  used  in  these  con- 
stitutional provisions  in  this  sense.  Some  cases,  however, 
seem  to  have  proceeded  on  the  contrary  assumption,20  but 
1  think  erroneously.  Public  statutes  may  be  local  or  spe- 
cial, and  incapable  of  uniform  operation  throughout  the 
stat'.\  and  therefore  within  the  purpose  of  these  provisions. 
The  frequency  and  inconvenience  of  such  local  and  special 
legislation  in  public  acts  led  to  the  adoption  of  these  pro- 
visions. The  enumeration  of  subjects  as  to  which  local  or 
special  legislation  is  forbidden  is  chiefly  an  enumeration  of 
subjects  upon  which  the  prior  legislation  was  of  that  char- 

19  Dean  v.  Spartenburg  Co.,  59  S.        20  Hingle    v.   State,    24  Ind.   28; 
C.  110.  :;7  S.  E,  226;  Nance  v.  An-     State  ex  rel.  Stoutmeyer  v.  Duffy, 

n,  60  S.  C.  r.di,  :;'.)  s.  ]■:.  V.  <  Jar-     7  New  850,  8  Am.  Rep.  713. 
olina   Grocery   Co.  v.  Burnet,  01  S. 
,  ■,')  s.  EL  B8t 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  845 

acter  —  public  laws  —  of  which  courts  would  take  judicial 
notice.  Under  these  requirements  it  must  not  be  by  special 
or  local  but  by  general  laws;  and  where  the  requirement  of 
uniform  operation  is  in  force  these  must  so  operate.  An 
act  to  establish  a  municipal  court  in  a  particular  city  or  a 
particular  municipal  government  would  not  be  a  general 
law,  but  it  would  be  a  public  law.21  That  which  concerns 
the  administration  of  public  justice,  like  legislation  relating 
to  a  court,  though  it  be  of  limited  jurisdiction  and  its  sit- 
tings confined  to  a  specified  locality,  is  a  public  law,  but 
local;  it  is  a  law  which  affects  the  public  generally.22  It  is 
not  necessary,  in  order  to  give  a  statute  the  attributes  of  a 
public  law,  that  it  shall  be  equally  applicable  to  all  parts  of 
the  state,23  nor  that  it  extend  in  its  operation  to  all  of  the 
inhabitants.  "A  statute  may  be  general  and  yet  be  opera- 
tive only  in  a  particular  locality."24 

]n  some  constitutions  it  is  provided  that  general  laws 
shall  not  be  in  force  until  published.  Such  a  provision  is 
contained  in  the  constitution  of  Wisconsin.  It  was  there 
held  that  an  act  establishing  a  municipal  court  in  the  city 
of  Milwaukee  was  a  general  law,  and  could  not  have  effect 
until  after  publication.25  The  object  of  that  provision  was 
notice  to  those  who  must  obey;  hence  it  referred  compre- 

21  State  ex  rel.  Webster  v.  Balti-  Healey  v.   Dudley,   5    Lans.    115; 

more  County,  29  Md.  516;  County  Williams  v.  People,  24  N.  Y.  405; 

Commissioners  v.    Commissioners,  Conner  v.   Mayor,   etc.,  5  id.  285; 

51  id.  4G5;  People  v.  Hill,  8  N.  Y.  Graves  v.  Mc Williams,  1  Pin.  491; 

449;  City  Council  of  Montgomery  People  v.  McCann,  16  N.  Y.  58,  69 

v.  Wright,  72  Ala.  411,   5  Am.  &  Am.  Dec.  642;  Kerrigan  v.  Force, 

Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  642;  Cass  v.  Dillon,  68  N.  Y.  381;  Falk,  Ex  parte,  42 

2  Ohio  St.  607,  617;  City  of  Coving-  Ohio  St.  638. 

ton  v.  Voskotter,  80  Ky.  219,  3  Am.  ™  State  ex  rel.  Webster  v.  Balti- 

&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  578;  Luling  v.  more  County,  29  Md.  516;  State  v. 

Racine,  1  Biss.  C.  C.  316,  Fed.  Cas.  Wilcox,  45  Mo.  458. 

N°-  8603.  24  Mt.  Vernon  v.  Evans  &  H.  Fire 

"People  v.  Davis,  61  Barb.  456;  Brick  Co.,  204  111.  32,  68  N.  E.  208. 

In  re  De  Vaucene,  31  How.  Pr.  337;  «  Tn  re  Boyle,  9  Wis.  264.     See 

-State  v.  Dalon,  35  La.  Ann.  1141;  Luling  v.  Racine,  1  Biss.  C.  C.  316, 

Phillips  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  1  Hilt.  483;  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8603. 


>.i  m  RAL    AM'   BPEOZAL   LAWS. 

.'\  to  public  laws,  not  merely  tosnoh  as  were  general 
in  distinotioD  from  local  or  speoial  laws.-'11 

195  (121).  General  laws,  therefore, in  this  constitutional 
antithesis,  are  pnblic  laws,  general  in  the  common-law 
sense;  but  a  more  limited  elass.  They  are  not  general  be- 
cause they  are  pnblic  acts,  though  they  are  such;  but  gen- 
eral because  their  subject-matter  is  of  common  interest  to 
the  whole  state,  and  not  local;  because  the  provisions  em- 
brace  the  whole  subject,  or  a  whole  class  of  it.  Kot  being- 
con  fined  to  a  part  they  are  not  partial  nor  special.  The 
state  contains  a  great  variety  of  subjects  of  legislation,  each 
requiring  provisions  peculiar  to  itself.  Generic  subjects 
may  be  divided  and  subdivided  into  as  many  classes  as  re- 
quire this  peculiar  legislation.  Thus  laws  relating  to  the 
people,  for  certain  purposes,  extend  to  all  alike,  as  for  protec- 
tion of  person  and  property;  for  other  purposes  they  are 
divided  into  classes,  as  voters,  sane  and  insane  persons, 
minors,  husbands  and  wives,  parents  and  children,  etc. 
Property  is  subject  to  division  into  classes.  Nearly  every 
matter  of  public  concern  is  divisible,  and  division  is  neces- 
sary to  methodical  legislation.  A  statute  relating  to  per- 
sons or  things  as  a  class  is  a  general  law;  one  relating  to 
particular  persons  or  things  of  a  class  is  special.27 

-   I  lark  v.  Janesville,  10  Wis.  13G;  legislation,  and  its  exercise    was 
Luling  v.  Racine,  1  Biss.  C.  C.  316,  necessary  to  the  promotion  of  the 
Fed  I  a-.  No.  m'.o  I.  public  welfare.     The  true  question 
27  Dunne   v.  Kansas   City   Cable  is  not  whether  classification  is  au- 
Ry.Ca,  131  Ma  1,5, !  2  S.W.  641;  Mc-  thorized  by  the  terms  of  the  eon- 
oey  v.  Wyatt,  41  W.  Va.  711,  stitution.but  whetherit  isexpressly 
;J0  S.  E,  239,  15  L  R  A.  609;  North-  prohibited     In  no  part  of  that  in- 
ern  Pac.  R  R  Co.  v.  Barnes,  2N.  D.  strument  can  such  prohibition  be 
310,  341,  51N.  W.  386.  found.     For  the  purpose  of  taxa- 
In    Wheeler   v.  Philadelphia,  77  t ion  real  estate  may  be  classified. 
the  court  Bay  that  the  Thus,  timber   lands,  arable  lands, 
-'  subjects  for  mineral    lands,   urban   and   rural, 
ition  "existed  at  the  time  of  may     be     divided     into     distinct 
loption  of  the  constitution ;  it  classes,  and  subjected  to  different 
I  by  the  legisla-  rates.     In  like  manner  other  buI>- 
from   the   foundation  of  the  jects,  trades,  occupations  and  pro- 
minent;   it   was    incident    to  fessions  may  be  classified.  And  not 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


347 


Laws  of  a  general  nature  are  required  to  be  made  in  such 
form  that  they  will  have  a  uniform  operation.  They  must 
be  so  framed  and  so  operate  on  account  of  being  of  that 


only  things  but  persons  may  be  so 
divided.  The  genus  homo  is  a  sub- 
ject within  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
stitution. Will  it  be  contended 
that  as  to  this  there  can  be  no 
classification?  No  laws  affecting 
the  personal  and  property  rights 
of  minors  as  distinguished  from 
adults?  Or  of  males  as  distin- 
guished from  females?  Or,  in  the 
case  of  the  latter,  no  distinction 
between  a,  feme  covert  and  a  single 
woman?  What  becomes  of  all  our 
legislation  in  regard  to  the  rights 
of  married  women  if  there  can  be 
no  classification?  And  where  is  the 
power  to  provide  any  future  safe- 
guards for  their  separate  estate? 
These  illustrations  might  be  multi- 
plied indefinitely  were  it  necessary. 
But  it  is  contended  that  even  if 
the  right  to  classify  exists,  the  ex- 
ercise of  it  by  the  legislature,  in 
this  instance,  is  in  violation  of  the 
constitution,  for  the  reason  that 
there  is  but  one  city  in  the  state 
with  a  population  exceeding  three 
hundred  thousand;  that  to  form  a 
class  containing  but  one  city  is  in 
point  of  fact  legislating  for  that 
one  city  to  the  exclusion  of  all  oth- 
ers, and  constitutes  the  local  and 
special  legislation  prohibited  by 
the  constitution.  This  argument 
is  plausible,  but  unsound.  It  is 
true  the  only  city  in  the  state,  at 
the  present  time,  containing  a  pop- 
ulation of  three  hundred  thousand, 
is  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  It  is 
also  true  that  the  city  of  Pitts- 


burg is  rapidly  approaching  that 
number,  if  it  has  not  already 
reached  it,  by  recent  enlargements 
of  its  territory. 

"  Legislation  is  intended  not  only 
to  meet  the  wants  of  the  present, 
but  to  provide  for  the  future.  It 
deals  not  with  the  past,  but,  in 
theoxy  at  least,  anticipates  the 
needs  of  a  state,  healthy  with  a 
vigorous  development.  It  is  in- 
tended to  be  permanent.  At  no 
distant  day  Pittsburg  will  probably 
become  a  city  of  the  first  class: 
and  Scranton,  or  others  of  the  rap- 
idly growing  interior  towns,  will 
take  the  place  of  the  city  of  Pitts- 
burg as  a  city  of  the  second  class. 
In  the  meantime,  is  the  classifica- 
tion as  to  cities  of  the  first  class 
bad  because  Philadelphia  is  the 
only  one  of  the  class?  We  think 
not.  Classification  does  not  depend 
upon  the  numbers.  The  first  man, 
Adam,  was  as  distinctly  a  class, 
when  the  breath  of  life  was 
breathed  into  him,  as  at  any  sub- 
sequent period.  The  word  was  not 
used  to  designate  numbers,  but  a 
rank  or  order  of  persons  or  things; 
in  society  it  is  used  to  indicate 
equality,  or  persons  distinguished 
by  common  characteristics,  as  the 
trading  classes,  the  laboring  classes; 
in  science  it  is  a  division  or  arrange- 
ment containing  the  subordinate 
divisions  of  order,  genus  and  spe- 
cies." See  People  v.  Henshaw,  76- 
Gal.  436;  Pritchett  v.  Stanislaus  Co., 
73  Cal.  310. 


GEN]  SAL     \M>    BPJ  OIAL    LAWS. 

general  nature.  In  (ass  v.  Dillon,2*  Thurman,  J.,  said: 
14 The  origin  of  this  section  is  perfectly  well  known.  The 
lature  had  often  made  it  a  crime  to  do  in  one  county, 
Or  even  township,  what  it  was  perfectly  lawful  to  do  else- 
where; and  had  provided  that  acts,  even  for  the  punish- 
ment of  offenses,  should  be  in  force  or  not  in  certain  locali- 
ties, as  the  electors  thereof  respectively  might  decide.  It 
was  to  remedy  this  evil  and  prevent  its  recurrence  that  this 
section  was  framed." 

In  Kelley  V.  State29  the  court  say:  "Without  undertaking 
to  discriminate  nicely  or  define  with  precision,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  character  of  a  law,  as  general. or  local,  depends 
on  the  character  of  its  subject-matter.  If  that  be  of  a  gen- 
eral nature,  existing  throughout  the  state,  in  every  count)', 
a  subject-matter  in  which  all  the  citizens  have  a  common 
interest  —  if  it  be  a  court  organized  under  the  constitution 
and  laws  within  and  for  every  county  of  the  state,  and 
possessing  a  legitimate  jurisdiction  over  every  citizen, — 
then  the  laws  which  relate  to  and  regulate  it  are  laws  of  a 
general  nature,  and  by  virtue  of  the  prohibition  referred  to 
must  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state."  It 
is  to  be  inferred  from  this  that  a  law  of  a  general  nature 
requires  a  subject-matter  of  this  extensive  and  all-pervading 
sort;  and  that  all  laws  relating  to  and  regulating  it  are  of 
the  same  character  —  of  a  general  nature.  If  limited  in 
terms,  so  as  not  to  extend  to  the  whole  state;  that  is,  if  the 
court  referred  to  be  established  in  only  a  portion  of  the 
state,  not  in  every  county,  it  does  not  have  the  uniform 
operation  required.  In  the  subsequent  case  of  McGill  v. 
Stilt*-,30  the  subject  received  thorough  reconsideration.  The 
question  was  on  the  validity  of  a  law  relating  to  the  selec- 
tion of  trial  jurors  in  that  court  —  whether  the  power  to 
in. ike  such  selection  must  be  conferred  on  the  same  class  of 
men  or  officers  in  every  county.  To  the  contention  that 
such  uniformity  was   required,  the   court  said:  "This    posi- 

.  Ohio  St.  007,  017.  »  6  Ohio  St.  209.  3034  Ohio  St.  239. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  SIO1 

tion  derives  some  support  from  what  was  said  in  Kelley  v. 
State.  But  subsequent  decisions  of  this  court,  and  in  which 
the  learned  judge  delivering  the  opinion  in  that  case  con- 
curred, show  that  the  proposition  that  a  law  relating  to  or 
concerning  a  general  subject-matter  is  a  law  of  a  general 
nature  is  not  to  be  taken  in  an  unqualified  sense  to  be  true. 
That  a  law  of  a  general  nature  must  concern  a  subject-mat- 
ter existing  and  capable  of  uniform  operation  throughout 
the  state  cannot  be  denied ;  for  if  the  law  from  the  nature 
of  its  subject-matter  is  not  susceptible  of  an  operation 
throughout  the  state,  it  cannot,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
constitution,  be  a  law  of  a  general  nature.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  all  laws  pertaining  to  a  general  subject- 
matter,  and  susceptible  of  a  uniform  operation  throughout 
the  state,  are  laws  of  a  general  nature  in  the  constitutional 
sense  of  that  term."  Such  differences  of  details  were  held 
not  to  affect  the  constitutionality  of  the  law.  The  require- 
ment was  intended  by  such  uniformity  of  operation  to  pre- 
vent the  granting  to  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  priv- 
ileges or  immunities  which  upon  the  same  terms  shall  not 
belong  to  all  citizens.  This  language  is  associated  with  the 
provision  in  question  in  the  Iowa  constitution,31  and  as 
qualified  by  it  was  adopted  in  other  states.32 

In  California  the  provision  was  adopted  from  the  consti- 
tution of  Iowa.  In  Smith  v.  Judge,33  Baldwin,  J.,  said: 
"  The  language  must  be  carefully  noted.  It  is  not  that  laws 
shall  be  universal  or  general  in  their  application  to  the  same 
subject,  nor  is  it  even  that  all  laws  of  a  general  nature  shall 
be  universal  or  general  in  their  application  to  such  subjects; 
but  the  expression  is  that  these  laws  shall  be  uniform  in 
their  operation;  that  is,  that  such  laws  shall  bear  equally  in 
their  burdens  and  benefits  upon  persons  standing  in  the 
same  category."  The  same  court  in  a  later  case  held  that 
the  provision  means  that  every  law  shall  have  a  uniform 
operation  upon  the  citizens  or  persons  or  things  of  any  class 

»  Sec.  6,  art.  L      32  McGill  v.  State,  34  Ohio  St.  239.      33 17  Cal.  554. 


Gl  M  RAL    AM>    BP]  DIAL    LAWS. 

upon  whom  or  which  it  purports  to  take  effect,  and  that  it 
shall  not  grant  to  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  privileges 
which,  upon  the  same  terms,  shall  not  equally  belong  to  all 
citizens.84  In  a  still  later  case88  that  court  said:  "The  con- 
stitution has  not  undertaken  to  declare  that  all  laws  shall 
have  a  uniform  operation.  Uniformity  in  that  respect  is 
made  requisite  only  in  case  the  law  itself  be  one  of  a  gen- 
eral nature.  .  .  .  The  nature  of  a  given  statute,  as  being 
genera]  or  special,  must  depend  in  a  measure  upon  the  legis- 
lative purpose  discernible  in  its  enactment.  We  must  not 
say  that  a  statute,  plainly  special  in  its  scope,  must  either 
have  a  uniform  operation  or  not  operate  at  all,  for  this  were 
to  add  another  to  the  limitations  which  the  constitution  has 
imposed  upon  the  legislative  power,  and  to  hold  in  effect 
that  no  special  act  could  be  passed  at  all,  at  least  if  'uni- 
form'  operation  means  universal  operation.88  .  .  .  >.'or 
i  say  that  a  special  statute  —  special  in  its  aims  and 
in  the  object  it  has  in  view  —  is  by  mere  construction  to  be 
converted  into  a  general  statute,  because  the  subject  with 
which  it  deals  might  have  been  made  the  subject  of  a  gen- 
eral law.  It  is  obvious  that  every  law  upon  a  general  sub- 
is  not  per  se,  nor'  by  constitutional  intendment,  neces- 
sarily of  a  general  nature.  The  subject  maybe  general,  but 
the  law  and  the  rule  it  prescribes  may  be  special.  Fees  of 
officers,  for  instance,  constitute  a  general  subject,  one  which 
pervades  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  state,  and  extends 
into  every  political  subdivision  of  which  it  is  composed;  yet 
a  statute  may  prescribe  what  these  fees  of  office  shall  be  in 
a  particular  county.37  And  may  declare  that  they  shall 
differ  from  fees  established  for  the  same  official  duties  per- 
formed in  another  county.     Such  a  law  would  not  be  a  law 

ench  v.  Teschemaker, 24 Cal.  general  nature  shall  have  a  uni- 

}  v.  Hyde,  37  CaL  375.  form  operation."    Art.  1,  sec.  11. 

35  People  v.  C.  P.  R.  It.  Co.,  43  Cal.  The  words  "  throughout  the  state  " 

are  omitted. 

e    provi-ion    requiring  uni-  37  State  ex  rel.  v.  Judges,  etc.,  21 

ity  in  the  California  constitu-  Ohio  St.  L 
tion  of  1849  is  that  "all  laws  of  a 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  351 

of  a  general  nature  involving  the  constitutional  necessity  of 
uniform  operation;  but  it  would  be  a  special  law  upon  a 
general  subject.38 

§  196.  The  question  has  received  very  careful  considera- 
tion in  a  recent  case  in  Minnesota.  In  1887  the  legislature 
of  that  state  passed  an  act  creating  a  commission  to  pur- 
chase certain  land  in  Minneapolis  and  to  erect  thereon  a 
court-house  and  city  hall,  to  issue  bonds  therefor  and  to  ap- 
portion the  cost  between  the  city  and  county.  In  1892  the 
constitution  was  amended  so  as  to  forbid  special  legislation 
in  general  and  in  particular  cases,  and  among  others  regu- 
lating the  affairs  of  any  county,  city,  etc.  In  1893  an  act 
was  passed  "to  provide  additional  means  for  completing 
and  furnishing  the  court-house  and  city  hall  building  now 
in  process  of  erection  in  the  city  of  Minneapolis  and  to  au- 
thorize the  issue  and  sale  of  bonds  therefor."  The  act  cov- 
ered the  ground  indicated  by  the  title.  In  a  suit  involving 
its  validity,  it  was  conceded  that  the  act  was  special,  but  it 
was  claimed  that  it  did  not  regulate  county  or  city  affairs. 
The  court  held  otherwise.  On  rehearing  the  court  held  the 
act  to  be  a  general  law;  that  the  working  out  of  the  act  of 
1887  had  produced  a  unique  condition  of  things,  which  ex- 
isted nowhere  else  and  could  not  come  into  existence  again 
under  the  constitution;  that  "no  legislation  more  general 
in  fact  than  the  act  of  1893  would  fully  meet  the  case,"  and 
that  "  if  that  act  had  been  general  in  form,  it  could  not  be 
made  more  general  in  fact,  and  still  cover  the  situation." 
In  discussing  the  general  principles  applicable,  the  court 
savs:  "The  line  of  demarcation  between  general  and  special 
laws  often  seems  indefinite  and  difficult  to  draw ;  but,  if  the 
principles  upon  which  the  distinction  rests  are  kept  in  mind, 
the  difficulty  is  not  nearly  so  great  as  it  might  seem.  A 
law  is  general  in  the  constitutional  sense,  which  applies  to 
and  operates  uniformly  upon  all  members  of  any  class  of 
persons,  places  or  things  requiring  legislation  peculiar  to 
itself  in  matters  covered  by  the  law;  while  a  special  law  is 
38  Ryan  v.  Johnson,  5  Cal.  80. 


GENERAL    \\i>   sn  01  k.L    I  A.W8. 

on.'  which  relates  and  applies  to  particular  members  of  a 
..■]•  particularized  by  the  express  terms  of  the  act 
or  b  parated  by  any  method  of  selection  from  the  whole, 
class  to  which  the  law  might,  hut  for  such  limitation,  bo 
applioabli 

-  ae  further  definitions  by  the  courts  of  what  constitutes 
a  general  law  are  here  given:  "  A  law,  therefore,  is  a  general 
law,  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  when  it  operates 
in  every  part  of  the  state  upon  every  person  or  transaction 
embraced  within  its  terms."40  "If  the  law  is  general,  and 
uniform  in  its  operation  upon  all  persons  in  like  circumstan- 
t  is  general  in  a  constitutional  sense,  but  it  must  operate 
equally  and  uniformly  upon  all  brought  within  the  relation 
and  circumstances  for  which  it  provides.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  it  is  limited  to  a  particular  branch  or  designated  portionof 
such  persons,  it  is  special.  Although  general  in  its  char- 
acter, a  law  may,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  extend  only  to 
particular  classes,  such  as  minors,  married  women,  laborers, 
bankers  or  common  carriers.  Such  a  law  is  not  obnoxious  to 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution  if  all  persons  of  the  class  are 
treated  alike  under  similar  circumstances  and  conditions,  but 
it  is  not  a  proper  application  of  the  definition  to  say  that  a 
law  is  general  because  it  applies  uniformly  to  all  persons  in 
the  conditions  and  circumstances  for  which  it  provides,  al- 
though only  a  particular  branch  of  a  class  or  some  particular 
description  of  persons.  If  an  act  should  attempt  to  confer 
privileges  only  on  persons  of  a  certain  stature  it  could  be 
said  to  apply  uniformly  to  all  people  answering  such  descrip- 
tion, and  yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  such  a  law 
would  be  a  general  one.  The  classification  must  be  so  gen- 
eral as  to  bring  within  its  limits  all  those  who  are  in  substan- 
ce v.  Cooley,  56  Minn.  540,  Philadelphia,  15G  Pa.  St  554,  27 
540,  58   X.  \V.  150.     A   case  quite     AtL  85ft 

similar  in  its  facts  arose  in  Penn-        4U  Union  Savings   Bank  &  Trust 
sylvania   and   was  differently  de-    Co.  v.  Dottenheim,  107  Ga.  C06,  018, 

;.    Perkins  v.  Philadelphia,  150    34  S.  E.  217. 
}■-.<..  St  589,  27  Atl  856;  Perkins  v. 


GENEKAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  353 

tially  the  same  situation  or  circumstance."41  "A  law  is 
special  in  the  constitutional  sense  when,  by  force  of  an  in- 
herent limitation,  it  arbitrarily  separates  some  persons,  places 
or  things  from  others  upon  which,  but  for  such  limitation, 
it  would  operate.  The  test  of  a  special  law  is  the  appropri- 
ateness of  its  provision  to  the  objects  that  it  excludes.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  what  a  law  includes  that  makes  it  special,  but 
what  it  excludes.  If  nothing  be  excluded  that  should  be 
contained  the  law  is  general.  Within  this  distinction  be- 
tween a  special  and  a  general  law  the  question  in  every  case 
is  whether  an  appropriate  object  is  excluded  to  which  the 
law,  but  for  the  limitations,  would  apply.  If  the  only  lim- 
itation contained  in  a  law  is  a  legitimate  classification  of  its 
objects  it  is  a  general  law.  Hence,  if  the  object  of  a  law 
have  characteristics  so  distinct  as  reasonably  to  form  for  the 
purpose  legislated  upon  a  class  by  itself,  the  law  is  general, 
notwithstanding  it  operates  upon  a  single  object  only;  for  a 
law  is  not  general  because  it  operates  upon  every  person  in 
the  state,  but  because  every  person  that  can  be  brought 
within  its  predicament  becomes  subject  to  its  operation." 4- 
"A  '  general  law,'  as  the  term  is  used  in  this  constitutional 
provision,  is  a  public  law  of  universal  interest  to  the  people 
of  the  state,  and  embracing  within  its  provisions  all  the  citi- 
zens of  the  state,  or  all  of  a  certain  class  or  certain  classes  of 
citizens.  It  must  relate  to  persons  and  things  as  a  class, 
and  not  to  particular  persons  or  things  of  a  class.  It  must 
embrace  the  whole  subject,  or  a  whole  class,  and  must  not 
be  restricted  to  any  particular  locality  within  the  state." 4J 
Additional  cases  deemed  especially  instructive  on  the 
question  of  general  and  special  laws  are  referred  to  in  the 
margin.44     "A  special  act  cannot  be  converted  into  a  gen- 

41  Lippman  v.  People,  175  111.  101,  44Holt  v.  Mayor,  111  Ala.  369,  19 

51  N.  E.  872.  So.   735;   Southern   Express  Co.  v. 

«  Budd  v.  Hancock,  66  N.  J.  L.  Mayor,  etc.,  132  Ala.  326,  31  So.  460; 

133,  135,  136,  48  Atl.  1023.  Gilson  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  128  Ind. 

«  Northern    Pac.    R.    R.    Co.   v.  65,27  N.  E.  235,11  L.  R.   A.  835; 

Barnes,  2  N.  D.  310,  341,  51  N.  W.  Consumers'  Gas  Trust  Co.  v.  Har- 

3i6.  liss,  131  Ind.  446,  29  N.  E.  1062,  15 
23 


Q]  mi:  \i     and   BFEOIAX    LAWS. 

era]  aot  by  a  declaration  of  the  legislature  that  it  shall  bo 

>nsidered." 

197.  What  are  laws  of  a  general  nature. — Laws  of  a 
general  natnre  are  such  as  relate  to  a  subject  of  a  general 
nature,  and  a  subject  of  a  general  nature  is  one  that  exists 
or  may  exist  throughout  the  state,  or  which  affects  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state  generally,  or  in  which  the  people  generally 
have  an  interest.  The  supreme  court  of  Ohio  says:  "But 
how  are  we  to  determine  whether  a  given  subject  is  of  a 
general  nature?  One  way  is  this:  if  the  subject  does  or 
may  exist  in,  and  affect  the  people  of,  every  county  in  the 
state,  it  is  of  a  general  nature.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  sub- 
ject cannot  exist  in  or  affect  the  people  of  every  county,  it 
is  local  or  special.  A  subject-matter  of  such  general  nature 
can  be  regulated  and  legislated  upon  by  general  laws  hav- 
nniforra  operation  throughout  the  state,  and  a  subject- 
matter  which  cannot  exist  in  or  affect  the  people  of  every 
county  cannot  he  regulated  by  general  laws  having  a  uni- 
form operation  throughout  the  state,  because  a  law  cannot 
operate  where  there  can  be  no  subject-matter  to  be  operated 
upon."46 

In  State  v.  Powers,47  the  court  held  that  laws  regulating 
the  organization  and  management  of  common  schools,  pur- 

L  R   A.  505:  Mattox  v.  Knox,  90  46Hixon   v.  Burson,  54  Ohio  St. 

<;a.  403,23  S.  E.  307:  State  v.  John-  470,  481.  43  N.   E.   1000.     See  also 

Bon,  77  Minn.  453.  80  Mo.  620;  Mur-  State  v.  Ellet,  47  Ohio  St.  90,  23  N. 

ray  v.  County  Com'rs,  81  Minn.  359,  E.  931,  21   Am.  St.  Rep.  372;  Cos- 

I  X.  W.  10:5;  Duluth  Banking  tello  v.  Wyoming,  49  Ohio  St.  202, 

v.  Koon,  81  Minn.  480,  488.  84  30  N.  E.  613;   State  v.  Nelson,  52 

N.  W.  6;  State  v.  Yancy,  123  Mo.  391,  Ohio  St.  88,  39  N.  E.  22,  26  L.  R  A. 

W.   880;  State  v.  Nelson,  52  317;  Cincinnati   v.   Steinkamp,  54 

N.  E.  22,  20  LR.A.  Ohio  St.  284,  43  N.  E.  490;  Gaylord 

317;     Fitzgerald    v.   Phelps    &  B.  v.  Hubbard,  56  Ohio  St.  25,  46  N.  E. 

Windmill  Co.,  42  W.  Va.  570,  26  S.  66;  Pearson  v.  Stevens,  56  Ohio  St. 

5;  Milwaukee  County  v,  Isen-  126,  40  N.  E.  511;  State  v.  Brown,  00 

ring,  109  Wia  9,  Bfi  N.  W.  131,  53  L,  Ohio  St.  462,  54  N.  E.  525;  State  v. 

R   A.  055.  Spellmire,  67  Ohio  St.  77,  65  N.  E. 

45  People  v.   Central  Pac.  R  R  619. 

-     '        393,  104,  23  Pac.  803  4T  88  Ohio  St  54. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL   LAWS.  355 

suant  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  to  "secure  a 
thorough  and  efficient  system  of  common  schools  throughout 
the  state," 4S  were  laws  of  a  general  nature;  that  if  the  con- 
stitution declares  a  given  subject  for  legislation  to  be  one  of 
a  general  nature,  all  laws  in  relation  thereto  must  have  a 
uniform  operation.  The  court  expressed  some  diffidence  in 
laj'ing  down  any  general  rule  for  determining  subjects  for 
legislation  of  a  general  nature,  but  suggested  as  such  mar- 
riage and  divorce,  and  the  descent  and  distribution  of  estates, 
and  others  of  like  common  and  general  interest  to  all  the 
citizens  of  the  state.  Two  provisions,  however,  were  said 
to  be  settled:  1.  That  the  general  form  of  a  statute  is  not 
the  criterion  by  which  its  general  nature  is  to  be  determined. 
2.  That  whether  a  law  be  of  a  general  nature  or  not  de- 
pends upon  the  character  of  its  subject-matter.49  It  was  ad- 
mitted that  on  subjects  concerning  which  uniformity  was 
required,  judicious  classification  and  discrimination  between 
classes  were  admissible.  In  State  v.  Brown,50  the  same 
court  says:  "If  it  is  not  true  that  all  subjects  are  general 
which  may  be  completely  comprehended  within  legislation 
which  operates  uniformly  throughout  the  state,  it  would  be 
difficult  indeed,  and  hitherto  it  seems  to  have  been  impossi- 
ble, to  state  any  other  rule  which  would  be  consistent  with 
the  language  employed  by  those  who  framed  these  and  kin- 
dred limitations  upon  the  exercise  of  legislative  power,  and 
with  the  purposes  for  which  those  limitations  were  fixed. 
The  language  employed  does  not  suggest,  if  indeed  it  per- 
mits, a  narrower  rule."  Taxation  for  county  purposes  is  a 
subject  of  a  general  nature  and  a  law  relating  thereto  must 
be  of  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state.51 

§  198  (124).  The  uniform  operation  of  laws  of  a  general 
nature. —  "Where  the  subject-matter  of  an  act  is  of  a  general 

is  Art.  6,  sec.  2.  mire,  67  Ohio  St.  77,  82,  65  N.  E. 

«  Citing  Kel ley  v.  State,  6  Ohio  619. 

St.  272;  McGill  v.  State,  34  id.  228.  "Pump    v.    Lucas    County,    69 

80  60  Ohio  St.  462,  469,  54  N.  E.  Ohio  St.  448. 
525.    To  same  effect,  State  v.  Speil- 


i.l  mi;  \i.    AM'    BPEOIAL    LAWS. 

nature,  and  a  law  deals  with  it  by  provisions  which  arc  de- 
signed for  the  whole  state,  ami  every  part  thereof,  such  act 
mi  form  operation  throughout  the  state  though  the 
condition  and  circumstances  of  the  state  may  be  such  as  not 
to  g  ve  the  acl  any  actual  or  practical  operation  in  every 
The  purpose  of  this  provision  requiring  a  uniform 
operation  of  general  laws  is  satisfied  when  a  statute  has  the 
same  operation  in  all  parts  of  the  state  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions.38     The  number  of  persons  upon 
whom  the  law  shall  have  any  direct  effect  may  bevery  few 
by  reason  of  the  subject  to  which  it  relates,  but  it  must 
operate  equally  and  uniformly  upon  all  brought  within  the 
lions  and  circumstances  for  which  it  provides/'1 
"The  uniform  operation  required  by  this  provision,"  says 
the  supreme  court  of  North  Dakota,  "does  not  mean   uni- 
versal operation.     A  general  law  may  be  constitutional  and 
operate  in  fact  only  on  a  very  limited  number  of  per- 
.  or  things,  or  within  a  limited  territory.     But,  so  far 
as  it  is  operative,  its  burdens  and  its   benefits   must   bear 
alike  upon  all  persons  and  things  upon  which  it  does  oper- 
ate; and  the  statute  must  contain  no  provision  that  would 
exclude  or  impede  this  uniform  operation  upon  all  citizens, 
or  all  subjects  and   places,  within  the  state,  provided   they 
brought  within  the  relations  and  circumstances  speci- 
fied in  the  act."55 

^Leavenworth  Co.   v.  Miller,  7  S5 Northern    Pac.    R    R    Co.   v. 

Kan.  479;    In    re    De  Vaucene,  31  Barnes,  2  N.  D.  310,341,  51  N.  W. 

How.  Pr.  337;   Gilson  v.  Board  of  836.    In  State  v.  Nelson,  52  Ohio  St. 

I  om're,  128  [nd  65,  ^7  N.  E.  235,  11  88,  98,  39  N.  E.  22,  26  L.  R  A.  317. 

;  I  onsumers'  Gas  Trust  the  court  says:  "This  section  of  the 

Co.  v.  Harless,  131  Ind.  440,  29  N.  E.  constitution  requires  that  laws  of 

1062.  15  L.  l:.  A.  505;  Lioyd  v.  Dot-  a  general  nature  shall  have  not  only 

13  Ohio  C.  D.  571.  an  operation,  but  a  uniform  opera- 

ii  v.  State.  42  Ind.  547;  tion.  throughout  the  state;  that  is, 

Ifeanlev  v.  State,  71  Ind.  99;  Elder  the  whole  state,  and  not  only  in  one 

r.  State,  96  id.  162;  State  v.  Wilcox,  or  more  counties.     The  operation 

45  Mo.  musl  be  uniform  upon  thesubjeot- 

•x  rel.  v.  Wright,  70  111.  matter  of  the  statute.     It  cat  nol 

People  ex  reL  v.  Cooper,  83  id.  operate  upon  the  named  suhject  in 

one   part  of  the  state   diilerently 


GENEKAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  357 

In  Indiana  local  laws  in  regard  to  fees  and  salaries  are 
forbidden,  and  general  laws  required  on  that  and  oth<  r  enu- 
merated subjects,  as  well  as  upon  all  subjects  on  which  gen- 
eral laws  could  be  made  applicable;  and  these  were  required 
to  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state.  An  act 
gave  certain  officers  different  salaries  and  made  such  differ- 
ence depend  on  the  question  of  population.  This  legislation 
was  held  to  be  neither  local  nor  special;  it  operates  uniformly 
and  alike  in  all  parts  of  the  state  under  like  facts.  It  gives 
the  same  increase  of  compensation  in  all  counties  where 
there  is  the  same  excess"  of  population.56 

In  Tennessee  there  are  constitutional  provisions  in  a  dif- 
ferent form,  which,  by  judicial  construction,  forbid  partial 
laws;  and,  as  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  require  that  gen- 
eral and  public  laws  shall  be  equally  binding  upon  every 
member  of  the  community.57  This  requirement  is  satisfied 
if  an  act  extends  to  and  embraces  all  persons  who  are  or 
who  may  come  into  the  like  situation  and  circumstances.53 
The  requirement  of  general  laws,  and  that  they  have  a  uni- 
form operation,  is  an  implied  prohibition  of  special  or  local 
laws;  so  the  express  prohibition  of  local  or  special  laws  is 
an  implied  requirement  that  legislation  shall  be  general. 

from  what  it  operates  upon  it  in  Am.  Dec.  189;  Sheppard  v.  Johnson, 

other  parts  of  the  state.     That  is,  2  Humph.  296;    Pope  v.  Philer,  3 

the  law    must   operate  uniformly  Heisk.  701;  Brown  v.  Haywood,  4  id. 

upon  the  named  subject-matter  in  357;  Burkholtz  v.  State.  16  Lea,  71; 

every  part  of  the  state,  and  when  Caruthers  v.  Andrews,  2  Cold.  378; 

it  does  that  it  complies  with  this  Woodard  v.  Brian,  14  Lea,  520;  Daly 

section  of  the  constitution."  v.   State,    13   id.    228;    McCallie   v. 

uilon    v.    Board  of  Commis-  Chattanooga.  3  Head,  321;  Hazen 

sioner.s,  53  Ind.  123;  State  v.  Reitz,  v.  Union  Bank,  1  Sneed,  115;  Bur- 

62  id.  159;  Clem  v.  State,  33  id.  418.  ton  v.  School  Commissioners,  Meigs, 

6"  State  v.  Burnett,  6  Heisk.  186;  589;  Taylor,  McBean&Co.  v.  Chancl- 

Vanzant  v.    Waddel,  2  Yerg.  260;  ler,  9  Heisk.  349;  Ragio  v.  State,  86 

Memphis  v.Fisher,  9  Baxt.  239;  Pa-  Tenn.  272,  6  S.    W.    401.     See  art. 

ducah  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Stovall,  13  XI,  sec.  8,  of  Const.  Tenn. 
Heisk.  1;    McKinney  v.    Memphis        58  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Dearmon.2Sneed. 

Overton  Hotel  Co..  12  Heisk.  104;  121;    Davis  v.    State,   3  Lea,  376; 

Budd  v.   State,  3  Humph.  483.  39  State  v.  Rauscher,  1  id.  96. 


hi  m  1:  a  l     and   BFBOIAL    laws. 

Individual  oases  of  tin*  enumerated  class  cannot  be  provided 
for.  These  are  converse  forms  of  similar  constitutional  reg- 
ulation. The  principal  discussion,  however,  has  occurred 
00  the  varied  inhibitions  of  special  or  local  enactment. 

.;  199(127).  Special  and  local  laws. —  Speoial  laws  arc 

made  for  individual  cases,  or  for  less  than  a  class  re- 

quiring  laws  appropriate  to  its  peculiar  condition  and  cir 

cumsl  Local  laws  are  special  as  to  place.69    When  pro- 

b  bited  they  are  severally  objectionable  for  not  extending 

to  the  whole  subject  to  which  their  provisions  would  be 

equally  applicable,  and  thus  permitting  a  diversity  of  laws 

rig  to  the  same  subject.     The  object  of  the  prohibition 

of  special  or  local  laws  is  to  prevent  this  diversity.     Each 

subject  as  to  which  such  laws  are  prohibited  is  by  such  inhi 

lated  as  a  subject  of  only  general  legislation 

which  shall  have  a  uniform  operation.     Generality  in  scope 

and    uniformity  of  operation  are   both    essential.     A  law 

which  embraces  a  whole  subject  would  still  be  special  if  not 

framed  to  have  a  uniform  operation. 

"  Every  subject  of  legislation,"  says  the  supreme  court  of 
( )hio,  "  is  either  of  a  general  nature  on  the  one  hand,  or  local 
and  special  on  the  other.  It  cannot  be  in  its  nature  both 
general  and  special,  because  the  two  are  inconsistent."60 

200.  Whether  act  general  or  special  —  General  prin- 
ciples —  Not  a  question  of  form. — "  It  seems  impossible  to 
fix  any  definite  rule  by  which  to  solve  the  question  whether 
a  law  is  local  or  general,  and  it  has  been  found  expedient 
ave  the  matter  to  a  considerable  extent  open,  to  be  de- 
termined upon  the  special  circumstances  of  each  case.""1 
"  If  its  operation  and  effect  must  necessarily  be  special,  the 
act  is  special,  whatever  may  be  its  form.  1\',  on  the  other 
hand,  the  act  has  room  within  its  terms  to  operate  upon  all 

,te  v.   Wilcox,   45  Ma    458;  Fitzgerald  v.  Phelps  &  B.  Windmill 

7.8   hool  District,  10  Okl.  <  to..  -12  W.  Va.  570,  26  S.  E.  315. 

I  Pan.  J41.  61  Ferguson  v.  Ross,  120  N.  Y.  459, 

.  Spellmire,  67  Ohio  St.  27  N.   EL  954;  Bruch  v.  Colombet, 

77. 81,  65  N.  El  61  'J.     To  same  effect,  104  Cal.  347,  352,  38  Pac.  45. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL   LAWS.  359 

of  a  class  of  things,  present  and  prospective,  and  not  merety 
upon  one  particular  thing,  or  upon  a  particular  class  of 
things  existing  at  the  time  of  its  passage,  the  act  is  gen- 
eral."62 That  the  question  is  not  one  of  form  is  expressly  held 
as  necessarily  implied  in  all  the  cases/3  and,  if  this  were  not 
so,  then  the  constitution  could  be  easily  evaded  "  by  dressing 
up  special  laws  in  the  garb  and  guise  of  general  statutes."64 
But  while  in  most  of  the  adjudicated  cases  the  laws  under 
consideration  were  general  in  form,  but  were  assailed  as 
special  in  fact,  yet  in  some  cases  laws  special  in  form  have 
been  held  to  be  general  in  fact,  and  the  test  is  the  same  in 
both  cases.65 

The  question  must  be  determined  from  the  act  itself  and 
from  facts  of  which  the  court  will  take  judicial  notice.66 
An  act  requiring  every  electric  street  car  to  be  provided 
with  a  screen  for  the  protection  of  the  motorman  was 
claimed  to  be  special  because  it  did  not  apply  to  all  street 
cars,  but  the  court  held  otherwise  and  refused  to  hear  evi- 
dence to  show  that  there  was  the  same  need  of  protection 
on  one  kind  as  on  another.67  The  court  says:  "While  a 
statute  must  stand  or  fall  by  its  operation,  rather  than  by 
its  mere  form,  yet  in  passing  upon  the  constitutionality  of 
a  statute,  a  court  can  judge  of  its  operation  only  through 
facts  of  which  it  can  take  judicial  notice.  A  court  cannot 
take  testimony  to  determine  the  operation  of  a  statute,  and 
thereby  declare  it  unconstitutional.  Neither  can  a  court 
judicially  know  that  a  cable  car,  or  a  horse  car,  is  so  con- 
structed and  operated  as  to  require  the  same  means  of  pro- 
tection for  the  operatives  as  is  required  on  electric  cars." 

«2Topeka  v.  Gillett,  32  Kan.  431,  leans,  49  La.  Ann.  114,  21  So.  179; 

436,  4  Pac.  800.  Ferguson  v.  Ross,  126  N.  Y.  459,  27 

63  Duffy  v.  New  Orleans,  49  La.  N.    E.  954;    Verges  v.  Milwaukee 

Ann.  114,  21  So.  179;   State  v.  Nel-  County,  116  Wis.  191,  93  N.  W.  44. 

son,  52  Ohio  St.  88,  39  N.  E.  22,  26  And  see  post,  §  215. 

L.  R.  A.  317.  b6  Davies  v.  Los  Angeles,  86  Cal. 

6*  State  v.  Herrmann,  75  Mo.  340.  37,  24  Pac.  771. 

65  State  v.  Cooley,  56  Minn.  540,  t*7  State  v.  Nelson,  52  Ohio  St.  88, 

58  N.   W.   150;  Duffy   v.  New   Or-  39  N.  E.  22,  26  L.  R.  A.  317. 


01  M  RAT     AM'    SPECIAL    LAWS. 

So  ths  question  is  to  be  determined  not  from  the  title  but 
the  bodj  of  the  aot.  An  act  was  entitled  "  An  act  to  make 
the  register  of  deeds'  office  of  Milwaukee  county  a  salaried 
offioe."  The  body  of  the  act,  as  construed  by  the  court,  ap- 
plied to  all  counties  having  a  population  of  150,000  or  up- 
wards, and  was  held  to  be  a  general  act,  though  the  title 
indicated  it  was  local  and   special.68 

§  '201.  Acts  whose  operation  is  dependent  upon  local 
adoption  —  Effect  of  limit  of  time  for  adoption. —  An  act, 
which  is  otherwise  general,  is  not  rendered  local  or  special 
by  a  provision  that  it  should  onl}r  operate  in  such  local  sub- 
divisions, municipal  or  other  public  corporations,  as  may 
adopt  it  by  popular  vote  or  otherwise.89  But  it  seems  mani- 
fest that  such  a  rule  must  lead  to  diversity,  and  some  courts 
hold  such  acts  void  for  that  reason,  when  they  relate  to  a 
subject  as  to  which  special  legislation  is  prohibited.70  A 
Pennsylvania  statute  of  1874  divided  all  cities  into  three 
classes  and  provided  a  scheme  of  government  for  each  class. 
A  supplementary  act  of  1889,  applicable  to  cities  of  the 
third  class,  provided  a  method  for  the  control  and  mainte- 
nance of  schools,  different  from  the  act  of  1874,  but  it  was 
not  to  apply  to  any  city  of  the  third  class  theretofore  or- 

68  Verges  v.  Milwaukee  County,  R.  A.  431;  State  v.  Hudson  Count}-, 
1 16  Wis.  191,  93  X.  W.  44.  52  N.  J.  L.  308,  20  Atl.  255;  Lloyd  v. 

69  People  v.  Kipley.  171  111.  44,  49  Dollisin,  13  Ohio  C.  D.  571;  Adam 
N.  E.  229;  People  v.  Simon,  17G  111.  v.   Beloit,   105  Wis.   303,  81  X.  W. 

!  N.   E,  910,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  869,  47  L.  R.  A.  441,     See   contra, 

Brown  v.  Holland,  97  Ky.  249,  Commonwealth  v.  Denworth,  145 

W.  629;  Maysville  &  Lexing-  Pa.  St.  172,  22  Atl.  820. 

ton  T.  Road  Co.  v.  Wiggins,  104  Ky.  ""Owen  v.  Baer,  154  Mo.  434,  55 

:  &  W.  484;  State  v.  Copeland,  S.  W.  644;  Commonwealth  v.  Rey- 

00  Minn.  315,  69  X.  W.  27,  61  Am.  nolds,  137  Pa.  St.  389,  20  Atl.  1011; 

St.  Rep.  410;  Lum  v.  Vicksburg,  72  Ward  v.  Boyd  Paving  &  C.  Co.,  79 

170:  State  v.  Pond,  Fed.  390;  Boyd  Paving  &  C.  Co.  v. 

&  \V.  469;  Ex  parte  Ward,  85  Fed.  27,  28  C.  C.  A.  667. 

Swann,  96  Mo.  41,  9  S.  W.  10;  State  And  see  Meredith  v.  Perth  Amboy, 

v.  Moore,  107  Mo.  78,  10  S.  W.  937;  00  X.  J.  L.  131,  30  Atl.  77'J;  State  v. 

State  v.  Wingfield,  115  Mo   138,  22  Copeland,  66  Minn.  315,  09  X.  W. 

S.  W.  303:  In  re  Petition  of  i  leve-  27,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  410. 

land,  52  X.  J.  L.  188, 19  Atl.  17,  7  L. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  otil 

ganized  unless  adopted  in  the  manner  provided.  The  su- 
preme court  held  that  the  act  was  void  and  say:  "If  the 
act  of  1S89  is  sustained,  we  are  liable  to  have  cities  of  the 
third  class:  (1;  By  special  charter  as  before;  (2)  by  special 
charter  and  under  the  act  of  1889;  (3)  under  the  general 
act  of  1874;  and  (4)  under  the  acts  of  1874  and  18S9.  An- 
other such  statute  would  double  these  possibilities,  and  each 
succeeding  similar  enactment  would  double  the  possibilities 
then  existing.  This  diversity,  thus  increasing  in  a  geometrical 
ratio,  would  result  in  a  confusion  and  disorder  with  which  the 
evils  of  undisguised  special  legislation  cannot  be  compared. 
In  order  to  procure  special  legislation  upon  any  subject  re- 
lating to  the  government  of  cities,  it  would  only  be  neces- 
sary to  procure  the  passage  of  a  law,  general  in  form,  with 
the  specific  and  special  features  desired,  with  a  provision 
that  it  should  apply  only  to  such  cities  as  might  accept  it; 
and  it  would  be  possible,  in  this  form  of  legislation,  for 
•each  city  in  the  third  class  in  the  state  to  have,  to  some  ex- 
tent, its  own  peculiar  system,  with  like  effect  as  if  enacted 
by  special  law."  71 

The  courts  which  uphold  the  validity  of  such  acts  also 
hold  that,  when  the  time  for  adoption  is  limited,  the  act  is 
thereby  rendered  special  and  void.  An  act  of  New  Jersey 
provided  that  a  district  court  should  be  established  in  every 
city  of  the  state  having  a  population  of  twenty  thousand  or 
less,  which  should,  by  resolution  of  its  city  council,  adopt 
the  act  within  three  months  from  the  date  of  its  passage. 
The  court  of  errors  and  appeals  held  that  the  limitation 
rendered  the  act  special  and  void  and  said:  "After  the  ex- 
piration of  the  three  months  the  law  remains,  but  applica- 
ble only  to  those  cities  of  the  class  indicated  that  have 
adopted  it.  Its  benefit  is  denied  to  then  existing  cities 
whose  necessity  may  at  any  time  after  the  three  months 
have  demanded,  or  may  hereafter  demand,  a  district  court, 
and  as  well  to  all  cities  that  may  have  come  into  being  after 
the  expiration  of  the  three  months'  limitation  or  mr,y  here- 

71  Commonwealth  v.  Reynolds,  137  Pa.  St.  389,  404,  405,  20  Atl.  1011. 


GEN]  RA1     ani»   BP]  OIAL    LAWS. 

come  into  being.    The  effect  of  the  limitation  is  a  re- 

on  of  the  class  to  which  the  law  may  be  applied.  It 
has  not  been  suggested,  and  it  is  not  perceived,  that  the  re- 
striction has  any  reasonable  relation  to  tho  purpose  of  the 
enactment.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  impossible  to  consider 
the  restrictive  clanse  without  feeling  that  it  is  illusive.  To 
sustain  it  as  a  proper  basis  of  classification  in  the  present 

would  1)0  to  overthrow  the  principle  so  often  enunciated 
in  our  courts,  that  it  must  be  a  characteristic  which  in  some 

nable  degree,  at  least,  will  justify  the  restriction,  and 
not  that  alone,  but  also  to  encourage  a  course  of  legislation 
that  could,  in  effect,  be  used  to  nullify  the  constitutional  pro- 
vision considered,  for  if  the  limit  be  three  months,  why  not, 
;,-  well,  three  days  or  three  hours?  "72 

In  another  case  in  the  same  state  an  act  relating- to  county 
boards  was  not  to  apply  in  any  county  unless  adopted  by 
popular  vote,  nor  unless  certain  steps  for  its  submission  were 
taken  within  twenty-two  days  after  its  passage.  In  holding 
the  act  to  be  special  and  void  the  court  suggests  a  general 
rule,  "that  if  the  legislature  selects  a  group  of  places  for 
the  possible  operation  of  a  statute,  and  makes  its  actual 
operation,  in  any  member  of  the  group,  conditional  upon  the 
expression  therein  of  a  sentiment  favorable  to  the  statute, 
such  expression  becomes  a  substantial  element  in  the  basis 
of  classification,  and  the  class  must  be  kept  open  for  the  ad- 

on  of  any  member  of  the  group  wherein  the  sentiment 
shall  at  any  time  be  appropriately  expressed."73  Similar 
rulings  have  been  math'  where  the  adoption  was  to  be  made 
;it  the  next  municipal  election  after  the  passage  of  the  act,74 
or  within  one  year  after  its  passage.7''     But  where  an  act 

only  to  operate  in  such  counties  as  should  adopt  it  by 
popular  vote  and  required  that  it  should  be  submitted  at 
the  next  election  for  local  oilicers,  it  was  held  that  the  pro- 

"-'De  Hart  v.  Atlantic  City.  63  N.  74  Christie    v.  Bayonne.  64   N.  J. 

.1.  I„  223,  ;:;  Atl.  7!:-'.  L.  181,  44  Atl.  887. 

.  Holmes,  68 N.  J.  L.  102,  "•'<  Rosa  v.  Passaic  City,64  N.  J.  L. 

■  .  76.  488,  45  Atl.  817. 


GENEKAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  363 

vision  as  to  time  of  submission  was  directory  and  the  act 
valid.76 

Enabling  acts  or  acts  conferring  powers  are  not  special 
because,  practically,  they  may  be  availed  of  or  acted  upon 
in  some  localities  and  not  in  others.77  But  here  again  the 
riirht  to  avail  of  the  act  must  not  be  limited  in  time.  Thus 
an  act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to  cities  of 
the  second  class,  of  which  there  were  ten,  contained  a  pro- 
vision that  it  should  not  apply  to  cities  of  less  than  six 
thousand  inhabitants,  and  contained  other  provisions  the  ef- 
fect of  which  was  that  the  act  could  not  be  availed  of  unless 
a  certain  notice  was  given  within  fourteen  days  after  the 
passage  of  the  act,  nor  unless  the  annexation  was  completed 
within  fifty-eight  days  after  such  passage.  The  act  was  held 
special  and  void.78  But  it  is  held  that  such  limitation  of 
time  is  valid  in  a  remedial  act  passed  to  relieve  certain  ex- 
isting and  temporary  conditions.79 

§  202.  Class  legislation. —  The  provision  that  laws  of  a 
general  nature  shall  have  a  uniform  operation  does  not 
alone  prevent  special  legislation,  except  where,  upon  a  sub- 
ject of  general  concern,  it  would  have  the  effect  to  make 
unjust  discriminations  between  people  or  places  in  the  same 
condition  and  circumstances;  in  other  words,  have  the  effect 
to  grant  to  certain  persons  or  classes  privileges  or  immuni- 
ties which,  upon  the  same  terms,  are  not  made  available  to 
all,  or  which  impose  liabilities  and  burdens  upon  some  but 
not  upon  all  in  the  same  class  or  condition.80    Legislation 

76  Albright  v.  Sussex  Co.  Lake  &  ™  Topeka  v.  Gillett,  32  Kan.  431, 

Park  Commission,  68  N.  J.  L.  523,  4  Pac.  800.     And  see  Burnham  v. 

53  AtL  612.  Milwaukee,  98  Wis.  128,  73  N.  W. 

"Hellmanv.  Shoalters,  114  Cal.  1018. 

136,  45  Pac.  1068;  State  v.  King,  37  ™  Alexander  v.  Duluth,  77  Minn. 

Iowa,  462;   Zumstein  v.  Mullen,  67  445,  80  N.  W.  623;  State  v.  Ames.  b7 

Ohio  St.  382,66  N.  E.  140;  Lehigh  Minn.  23,  91  N.  W.   18.     And   see 

Valley  Coal  Co.'s  Appeal,  164  Pa.  State  v.   Guttenberg,  62  N.  J.  L. 

St.   44,   30    Atl.    210;    Middletown  605,  43  Atl.  703:  Herman  v.  Gutten- 

Road,  15  Pa.  Supr.  107;  Jermyn  v.  berg.  63  N.  J.  L.  616,  44  Atl.  758. 

Scranton,  186  Pa.  St.  595,  40  Atl.  972.  **u  Tn  McGill  v.  State,  34  Ohio  St. 


,.i  \  I  BA.L    AM>    sri  DIAL    LAWS. 


of  the  latter  description  is  known  as  "class  legislation."81 
In  most  oases,  whether  an  acl  is  a  general  law  or  not  de- 
pends upon  a  ([lies!  urn  of  classification.  So  whether  an  act 
is  class  legislation  or  not  depends  upon  a  question  of  classi- 


he  court  thus  discussed  this 
distinction:    "In  State  ex  rel.  v. 
The  Judgea  etc,  31  Oliio  St.  1,  it 
was  held  that  an  act  limiting  and 
ating  the  fees  of  the  county 
srs   of    Hamilton   county  was 
not  a  law  of  a  general  but  of  a  local 
nature.     And  in  Cass  V.  Dillon,  2 
I  Ihio  St.  617,  it  was  said  that  a  law 
authorizing  and  requiringthe  com- 
missioners to  subscribe  inbehalfof 
the  county  to  the  stock  of  a  rail- 
road company  was  no  more  of  a 
general  nature  than  would  be  an 
act   to  authorize  the  construction 
of  a  bridge,  or  the  erection  of  a 
poor-house;  and  yet  it  is  perfectly 
■   that  an   act  regulating  the 
fees  of  county  officers  throughout 
the    state    pertains    to  a   general 
subject-matter   existing   in   every 
county,  and  in  which  all  citizens 
have  an  interest,  as  do  the  gen  ral 
authorizing  county  commis- 
rs  to  construct  bridges,  erect 
poor-houses   and    other  necessary 
public   buildings.     And    yet    who 
would    venture    to    question     the 
power  of  the  legislature  to  clothe 
commissioners  of  a  county,  or 
the  trustees  of  a  township,  by  local 
■tment.  with  authority  to  pro- 
vide  all  public  buildings  or  struct- 
ures that  the  local  wants  of  a  com- 


munity might  require;  orwhowill 
contend  that  the  power  of  the  leg- 
isl.it  ure  is  so  circumscribed  and  re- 
Btrioted  as  to  prohibit  it  from  re- 
quiring a  lax  to  be  levied  or  a 
court-house  to  be  erected  in  one 
county  without  requiring  the  same 
thing  to  be  done  in  every  county 
in  the  state?  The  act  authorizing 
the  judges  of  the  court  of  common 
pleas  to  fix  the  times  for  holding 
the  terms  of  court  in  their  respect- 
ive districts  is  a  general  law,  the 
subject-matter  of  which  concerns 
all  the  people  throughout  the  state. 
Cannot  the  legislature  change  by 
local  enactment  the  term  of  a 
court  so  fixed?  If  it  may  do  so,  it 
is  because  the  act  authorizing  the 
judges  to  fix  the  time  for  holding 
the  courts,  although  general  in  its 
terms,  and  relating  to  a  subject- 
matter  that  pervades  all  parts  of 
the  state,  is  not,  within  the  mean- 
ing and  intendment  of  the  consti- 
tution, a  law  of  a  general  nature. 
Such  laws  are  clearly  distinguish- 
able in  their  nature  from  those 
that  confer  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties or  impose  burdens  upon  a  citi- 
zen or  class  of  citizens  that  are  not 
upon  the  same  terms  and  condi- 
tions conferred  and  imposed  upon 
all.     It  is  easy  to  comprehend  that 


By  class    legislation,  we  un-  is   imposed  upon   another  in  like 

ind  such  legislation  i  case  offending."    People  v.  Bellet, 

-  to  one  which  are  accorded  99  Mich.  151,  L53,  57  N.  W.  1094.  41 

-  r  inflicts  upon  one  indi-  Am.  St.  Rep.  589,  22  L.  R,  A.  G9G. 
vidua!  a  more  severe  penalty  than 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  oG5 

fication.  And  it  is  held  that  the  same  tests  are  to  be  applied 
in  both  cases  in  determining  whether  a  proper  classification 
has  been  made.82  For  this  reason  the  reviser  has  included 
cases  on  class  legislation  in  this  chapter. 

§  203.  Classification  of  subjects  for  legislation  —  Gen- 
eral principles. —  Whether  or  not  an  act  is  class  legis- 
lation, or  whether  or  not  it  is  a  general  or  special  law. 
depends  fundamentally  upon  a  question  of  classification. 
When  an  act  is  assailed  as  class  or  special  legislation,  the 
attack  is  necessarily  based  upon  the  claim  that  there  are 
persons  or  things  similarly  situated  to  those  embraced  in 
the  act,  and  which  by  the  terms  of  the  act  are  excluded 
from  its  operation.  The  question  then  is  whether  the  per- 
sons or  things  embraced  by  the  act  form  by  themselves  a 
proper  and  legitimate  class  with  reference  to  the  purposes 
of  the  act.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  the  constitution 
does  not  forbid  a  reasonable  and  proper  classification  of  the 
objects  of  legislation.  The  question  is,  what  is  reasonable 
and  proper  in  the  premises. 

Xo  definite  or  absolute  rule  can  be  laid  down  by  which 
the  question  can  be  determined  in  all  cases,  but  the  ques- 
tion must  be  determined  in  each  case  as  it  arises,  and  for 

a  law  defining  burglary  or  bigamy,  nature,  or  maybe  local  or  special 
and  its  penalty,  or  regulating  de-  and  relate  to  matter  that  may  be 
scent  and  distribution,  or  prescrib-  made  the  subject  of  a  general  law, 
ing  a  rate  of  interest  for  the  use  of  not  only  rests  upon  some  reason 
money,  and  others  of  a  similar  ef-  but  is  well  supported  by  author- 
feet  and  operation,  are  laws  of  a  ity." 

general  nature,  requiring  uniform  82  state  v.  Cooley,  56  Minn.  540, 

operation    throughout    the    state.  58  N.   W.  150:  Julien  v.  Model  B. 

To  discriminate  between  localities  L.  &  I.  Ass'n,  116  "Wis.  70,  92  N.  W. 

or  citizens  in  the  enactment  of  laws  561.     In  the  latter  case  the  court 

of  such  nature  would  be  to  grant  says:    "Legislative    discretion    to 

privileges  or  impose  burdens  of  a  classify  persons  for  the  purposes  of 

character  which  it  was  the  clear  legislation  is  substantially  the  same 

purpose  of  the  constitution  to  pro-  under  the  fourteenth  amendment 

vide  against.     But  that  a  law  may  of  the  federal  constitution  as  under 

be   general   and  concern   matters  the  state  constitutional  provision 

purely   local  or  special    in    their  prohibiting  special  legislation." 


,,i  m  i:ai.    and   BPEOIAL    LAWS. 

that  case  alone.81     It  is  laid  down  in  one  case  that  "the 

!  the  reasonaoleness  of  a  classification  is  that  it  must  bo 

I  upon  some  difference  which  bears  a  just,  and  proper 

relation  to  the  attempted  classification,  and  is  not  a  mere 

arbitrary  selection."  M 

question  was  very  elaborately  considered  in  Minne- 
sota i"  a  case  the  facts  of  which  have  already  been  stated.80 
The  court  in  that  case  lavs  down  the  following  propositions: 
1.  "The  fundamental  rule  is  that  all  classification  must  he 
based  upon  substantial  distinctions  which  make  one  class 
really  different  from  another."  2.  "  Another  rule  is  that  the 
characteristics  which  form  the  basis  of  the  classification 
must  be  germane  to  the  purpose  of  the  law;  in  other  words, 
ition  for  a  class,  to  he  general,  must  be  confined  to 
matters  peculiar  to  the  class.  There  must  be  an  evident 
connection  between  the  distinctive  features  to  be  regulated 
and  the  regulation  adopted."  :i.  "Another  rule  is  that  to 
whatever  class  a  law  applies,  it  must  apply  to  every  member  of 
that  class."  4.  "Another  proposition  that  may  belaid  down 
as  beyond  question  is  that,  if  the  basis  of  classification 
is  valid,  it  is  wholly  immaterial  how  many  or  how  few  mem- 
bers there  are  in  theclass."  5.  "The  last  proposition  to  which 
we  will  refer  is  that  the  character  of  an  act  as  general  or 
special  depends  on  its  substance,  and  not  on  its  form.  It 
may  he  Bpecial  in  fact  although  general  in  form,  and  it  may 
neral  in  fact  although  special  in  form.  The  mere 
form  is  not  material."86 

iBrach    v.   Colombet,   104  Cal.  for  which  the  rule  is  adopted,  pro- 

8   Pac.  4.j;  Ferguson  v.  vided  the  classification  be  a  proper 

Koss.  126  N.  Y.  4o9,  '-'7  N.  El  954  one.    The  legislature,  however,  can- 

ville  Terminal  not  adopt  an  arbitrary  classifica- 

i  ,,.,  .;                 ..  874,  27  So.  221,  tion,  for  it  must  be  based  on  some 

85  Ante,  §  196.  reason  suggested  by  such  difference 

ite  v.  Cooley,  58  Minn.  640,  in  the  situation  and  circumstances 

52,  58  N.  W.  L50.     In  a  subse-  of  the  subjects  placed  in  the  differ- 

case  the  Bame court  says:  "A  ent  classes  as  to  disclose  the  neces- 

law  is  general  and  uniform  in  its  sity  or  propriety  of  different 

which  operates  equally  lation  in  respect  thereto.     Any  law 

upon  all  iubjects  within  the  claSB  based  u[  oa  such  classification  must 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  367 

There  has  been  much  discussion  of  this  subject  by  the 
courts  of  New  Jersey.  It  has  there  received  a  very  definite 
and  satisfactory  solution.  The  principles  there  established 
for  classification  of  subjects  for  legislation  have  been  gen- 
erally recognized;  they  will  probably  harmonize  the  well- 
considered  cases  in  all  the  states  where  similar  constitutional 
regulations  are  in  force. 

Jn  Yan  Riper  v.  Parsons87  the  supreme  court  declared  this 
principle:  that  a  general  law,  as  contradistinguished  from 
one  special  or  local,  is  a  law  which  embraces  a  class  of  sub- 
jects or  places,  and  does  not  omit  any  subject  or  place  natu- 
rally belonging  to  such  class.  The  second  time  that  case 
passed  under  judicial  examination  in  the  same  court  the 
holding  was  thus  expressed:  "A  law  framed  in  general 
terms,  restricted  to  no  locality,  and  operating  equally  upon 
all  of  a  group  of  objects  which,  having  regard  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  legislature,  are  distinguished  by  characteristics 
sufficiently  marked  and  important  to  make  them  a  class  by 
themselves,  is  not  a  special  or  local  law  but  a  general  law, 
without  regard  to  the  consideration  that  within  this  state 
there  happens  to  be  but  one  individual  of  that  class,  or  one 
place  where  it  produces  effects."  The  statute  to  which  the 
court  in  that  case  gave  effect  spent  its  force  entirely  in 
its  application  to  one  city. 

This  is  a  leading  case  in  that  state,  and  has  been  followed 
by  many  others  in  that  state  and  elsewhere  affirming  and 
exemplifying  it.88 

embrace    all,    and    exclude    none,  84  N.  W.  103;  Duluth  Banking  Co. 

wliose  condition  and  wants  render  v.  Koon,  81  Minn.  486, 488, 84  N.  W.  6. 

such   legislation   necessary  or  ap-  8T  40  N.  J.  L.  1 23. 

propriate  to  them  as  a  class.    Legis-  88  Board  of  Assessors  v.  Central 

lation  limited  in  its  relation  to  par-  R.  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  146,  4  Atl.  578; 

ticular  subdivisions  of  the  state,  to  Sutterly  v.  Camden  Common  Pleas, 

be  valid,  must  rest  on  some  charao  41  N.  J.  L.  495;  Field  v.  Silo,  44  id. 

teristic  or  peculiarity  plainly  dis-  355;  Hines  v.  Freeholders,  etc.,  45 

tingnishing    the    places    included  id.  504:  Bucklew  v.  Railroad  Co., 

from  those  excluded."     Murray  v.  04  Iowa,  603,  21  N.  W.  103;  Central 

Board  of  Co.  Com.,  81  Minn.  359,  361,  Trust  Co.  v.  Sloan,  65  Iowa,  655; 


.,1    \!   l.'AI.     AMI     Sl'l  CI  Al.     LAWS. 

In  Rutgers  v.  New  Brunswick  M  an  act  oame  in  question 
which  had  the  effect  t<>  abolish  a  court  at  a  particular  city, 
ed  under  a  prior  general  law.     This  prior  law  pro- 
vided that  one  district  court  should  bo  established  in  every 
city   in    the    state    of   fifteen    thousand   inhabitants.     New 
Brunswick  had  a  population  of  sixteen  thousand  six  hundred. 
By  a  supplement  to  this  act,  the  original  act  was  amended 
by   substituting  twenty  thousand   in   the   place  of  fifteen 
thousand.    This  amendment  was  held  not  to  be  a  local  or  spe- 
cial law,  and  that  it  abolished  the  district  court  in  that  city 
An  ad  which  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  compensation 
of  president  judges  classifies  them  into  separate  classes  by 
tice  to  population  of  the  counties  in  which  they  serve 
sustained  as  a  general  law.     The  duties  of  such  judges 
ai'e  well  known  to  vary.     Those  located  in  populous  coun- 
ts s  are  likely  to  be  called  on  to  perform  more  onerous  du- 
.  nd  their  time  will  probably  be  more  fully  occupied. 
And  so  such  a  distinction,  looking  at  the  matter  of  fixing 
compensation  alone,  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  any  respect 
,e."u 
A  law  may  be  general  in  its  terms,  and  apply  to  a  class 
constituted  by  having  characteristics  which  make  it  a  class, 
ami  yet  be  an  illusory  classification  which  will  not  warrant 
legislation  confined  to  it,  where  special  or  local  legislation 

Darrow  v.  People,  8  Colo.  417;  Wei-  56  N.  J:  L.  4G9,  29  Atl.  183;  State  v. 

ker  v.  Potter,  18  Ohio  St.  85;   Peo-  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L.  83,  30  Atl.  180; 

pie  v.  Wallace,  70  111.  680;  State  v.  Hudson  County  v.  Clarke,  65  N.  J. 

Land,  51  N.J.  L.  62;  Bingham  L.  271,  47  Atl.  478:  Build  v.  Han- 

v.  I  amden,  40  id.  156;  Pell  v.  New-  cock,  66  N.  J.  L.  133,  48  Atl.  1023; 

ark.   id.   71.  550,   20  Am.  Rep.  2GG;  State  v.  Holmes,  68  N.  J.  L.  192,  53 

Rutgers  v.  New  Brunswick,  42  N.  Atl.    76;    Albright    v.    Sussex    Co. 

il;  State  ex  reL  Richards   v.  Lake  &  Park  Com.,  68  N.  J.  L.  523, 

Hammer,   id.  4:{5;  Ti^er  v.   Morris  53  Atl.  012. 

id.  631;  Worthley  v.  Steen,       8942  N.  J.  L.  51. 
4:5  id.  542;  Bumstead  v.  Govern,  47        90  Skinner  v.  Collector,  42  N.  J. 

.  I.  368;  aflirmed,  48  id.  612;  State  L.  407:  Ilanlon  v.  Board   <>(  Com- 

v.  Trenton,  51  N.  J.  L.441,  21    Atl.  missioners.  53    Ind.    123;    State    v. 

v.  Dorland,  50  N.  J.  L.  Eeitz,  Auditor,  62  id.  159. 
ite  v.  Trenton, 


GENEKAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  369 

is  prohibited.  The  grouping  must  be  founded  on  peculiar- 
ities requiring  legislation,  and  legislation  which  by  reason 
of  the  absence  of  such  peculiarities  is  not  necessary  or  ap- 
plicable outside  of  that  class.  In  other  words,  the  true 
principle  requires  something  more  than  a  mere  designation 
by  such  characteristics  as  will  serve  to  classify;  for  the 
characteristics  which  will  thus  serve  as  a  basis  of  classifica- 
tion must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  mark  the  objects  so  des- 
ignated as  peculiarly  requiring  exclusive  legislation.  There 
must  be  a  substantial  distinction,  having  a  reference  to  the 
subject-matter  of  the  proposed  legislation  between  the  ob- 
jects or  places  embraced  in  such  legislation  and  the  objects 
or  places  excluded.  The  marks  of  distinction  on  which  the 
classification  is  founded  must  be  such,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  as  will  in  some  reasonable  degree  at  least  account 
for  and  justify  the  restriction  of  the  legislation.91  Distinc- 
tions which  do  not  arise  from  substantial  differences,  so 
marked  as  to  call  for  separate  legislation,  constitute  no 
ground  for  supporting  such  legislation  as  general.92 

The  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania  sa}'s:  "Legislation 
for  a  class  distinguished  from  a  general  subject  is  not  special 
but  general,  and  classification  is  a  legislative  question,  sub- 
ject to  judicial  revision  only  so  far  as  to  see  that  it  is 
founded  on  real  distinctions  in  the  subjects  classified,  and 
not  on  artificial  or  irrelevant  ones  used  for  the  purpose  of 
evading  the  constitutional  prohibition.  If  the  distinctions 
are  genuine  the  courts  cannot  declare  the  classification  void, 
though  they  may  not  consider  it  to  be  on  a  sound  basis. 

91  Hammer  v.  State.  44  N.  J.  L.  479,  42  N.  W.  396;  State  v.  Stand- 

667.  ley,  76   Iowa,  215,  40  N.  W.   815; 

9-  Hammer  v.  State,  44  N.  J.  L.  Newman  v.  Emporia,  41  Kan.  583, 

667;  Hudson  v.  Buck,  51    N.  J.  L.  21  Pac.  593;  Nichols  v.  WaKer,  37 

155,  16  Atl.  698;  Beaver  County  In-  Minn.   264,  33  N.  W.  800;  Ruther- 

dexes,   6    Pa.    Co.   Ct.   525:    Allen  ford  v.  Hamilton.  97  Mo.  543,  11  S. 

v.  Pioneer  Press,  40  Minn.  117,  41  W.  249;  Atlantic  City  Water-works 

N.  "W.  936;  Preston  v.  Louisville,  84  Co.  v.  Consumers'  Water  Co.,  44  N. 

Ky.  118;  Cobb  v.  Bord.  40  Minn.  J.  Eq.  427. 
24 


GENERAL    .\M>    BP1  01  M.    LAWS. 


Tin4  test  is,  not  wisdom,  hut  good  faith  in  the  classifica- 
tion 

It  is  manifest  from  the  Foregoing  discussion  that  the  sub- 
-  a  difficult  one,  and  that  opinions  will  frequently 
differ  as  to  the  character  of  a  particular  act.  In  many  cases 
the  court  is  divided  and  dissenting  opinions  are  filed.  In 
giving  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  one  such  case  in  the  su- 
preme court  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Justice  Brewer  says: 
"  While  cases  on  either  side  and  far  away  from  the  dividing 
line  are  easy  of  disposition,  the  dilficulty  arises  as  the  stat- 

abolt  v.  Commonwealth,  187 
Pa.  St.  318,  828,  41  Atl.  22. 

The  question  of  classification  is 
particularly  discussed  in  t  he  fol- 
lowing cases:  Lasher  v.  People,  183 
111.  226,  55  N.  E.  663,  75  Am.  St.  Rep. 
103,  47  L  R  A.  80'3;  Union  Sa  < 
Bank  &  T.  Co.  v.  Dottenheim,   L07 


prohibiting  special  legislation.  The 
rules  on  the  subject  which  generally 
prevail,  and  which  have  received 
1  he  sanction  of  this  court,  are  as  fol- 
lows: (1)  All  classification  must  be 
base  I  upon  substantial  distinctions 
which  make  one  class  really  differ- 
ent from  another.  (2)  The  classifi- 
6,  8 1  S.  E.  217;  Simard  v.  Sul-    cation  adopted  must  be  germane  to 


livan,  71  Mmn.  517,  74  N.  W.  280; 

v.  Sullivan,  72  .Minn.  126,  75 

N.  W.  8;  Duluth  Banking  Co.   v. 

Koon.  81   Minn.  4S0,  84  N.  W.  6; 

Ballard  v.  Miss.  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  81 

Miss.  507,  34  So.  5:::::  State  v.  Miller, 

100  Mo.  439,  13  S.  W.  G77;  Dunne  v. 

Kansas  City  Cable  Ry.  Co.,  131  Mo. 

1,  32  S.  W.  G41;  Owen  v.  Baer,  L54 

Mo.  434,  55  S.  W.  641;  State  v.  Boyd, 

19  Nev.  43,  5  Pac.  735;  Edmonds  v. 

Herbrandson,  2  N.  D.  270,  50  N.  W. 

14 L.  EL  A.  725;  Sutton  v.  State, 

06  Tenn.  696,  36  S.  \V.  697,  33  L.  R. 

';  Clark  v.  Finley,93  Tex.  171, 

54  S.  W.  343;  Julien  v.  Model  B.  L. 

.:    I.  Asa'n,  116  Wis.  70,  02  N.  W. 

561.     In  the  latter  case  the  court 

says:     "Legislative    discretion    to 


the  purposes  of  the  law.  (3)  The 
classification  must  not  be  based 
upon  existing  conditions  only;  it 
must  not  be  so  constituted  as  to 
prevent  additions  to  the  number 
included  within  the  class.  (4)  To 
whatever  class  a  law  may  apply,  it 
must  apply  equally  to  each  member 
thereof.  Whether  any  particular 
classification  made  by  the  legisla- 
ture satisfies  those  requisites  is  pri- 
marily a  legislative  question.  The 
field  covered  by  its  discretionary 
power  in  the  matter  is  very  broad. 
It  is,  of  course,  not  above  judicial 
control,  but  is  safe  from  restraint 
so  long  as  any  reasonable  ground 
can  be  discovered  to  support  it. 
The  court  can  apply  no  test  to  the 


fy  persons  for  the  purposes  of  matter  except  a  constitutional  test, 
legislation  is  substantially  tin:  same  That  of  the    mere  wisdom  of  the 
under  the  fourteenth  amendment  measure  is  exclusively  for  legisla- 
te federal  constitution  as  under  tive  consideration." 
t lie  state  constitutional  provision 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  371 

ute  in  question  comes  near  the  line  of  separation.  Is  the 
classification  prescribed  thereby  purely  arbitrary,  or  has  it 
some  basis  in  that  which  has  a  reasonable  relation  to  the 
object  sought  to  be  accomplished?  It  is  not  at  all  to  be 
wondered  at  that  as  these  doubtful  cases  come  before  this 
court  the  justices  have  often  divided  in  opinion.  To  some 
the  statute  presented  seemed  a  mere  arbitrary  selection;  to 
others  it  appeared  that  there  was  some  reasonable  basis  of 
classification."94 

§  204.  Classification  of  municipalities  according  to 
population  —  California. —  In  this  state  the  constitution 
permits  of  the  classification  of  cities  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
corporation and  organization,  and  it  is  held  that  this  classi- 
fication must  be  made  by  a  general  law,  and  that  subsequent 
legislation  must  have  reference  to  the  classification  so  made. 
The  supreme  court  says: 

"I  think  it  was  intended  that  the  classification  there  au- 
thorized was  to  be  by  a  general  law  in  the  same  sense  and 
in  the  same  way  in  which  it  was  necessary  to  provide  for 
the  incorporation  and  organization  of  cities  and  towns. 
Legislation  in  regard  to  such  corporations  would  thereafter 
be  made  by  reference  to  the  classes  thus  made.  The  special 
authority  to  thus  classify  cities  and  towns  would  also  seem 
to  imply  that  they  cannot  be  otherwise  classified  for  pur- 
poses of  legislation.  If  they  may  be,  and  new  classes  cre- 
ated whenever  it  is  desired  by  any  one  to  procure  legislation 
which  shall  apply  to  only  a  few  cities  of  the  class,  the  lim- 
itations of  the  constitution,  so  carefully  made,  and  so  often 
repeated,  can  be  easily  defeated. 

"I  think  a  law  made  in  conformity  with  this  special  per- 
mission in  the  constitution  must  be  a  law  classifying  all 
cities  in  the  state,  or  a  law  amendatory  of  such  a  law.  It 
must  leave  all  the  municipal  corporations  classified."95 

94  Atchison.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  proved  in  Denman  v.  Broderick, 
v.  Matthews,  174  U.  S.  96,  105, 19  S.  Ill  Cal.  90.  43  P:ic.  516,  and  Ex 
•C.  Rep.  609,  43  L.  Ed.  909.  parte  Giamhonini,  117  Cal.  573,  49 

95  Darcy  v.  San  Jose,  104  Cal.  642,  Pac.  73  i. 
38  Pac.  500.    This  case  has  been  ap- 


372  01  M   B  \1.     AM'    BP1  OIAL    LAWS. 

eneral  classification  law  to  be  valid  must  be  based  apoi 
substantial  diCerences  of  population,  such  as  may  rationally 
be  deemed  to  call  for,  or  at  least  to  justify,  diversity  of  or 
conization.98  In  tin-  cases  cited  it  is  hold  that  laws  which 
make  new  classes  for  particular  purposes  conneoted  with 
the  organization  of  the  municipality  arc  void,  hut  that  new 
s  may  be  made  for  other  purposes,  if  the  classification 
is  reasonable  and  appropriate  to  the  purpose  of  the  act.07  A 
law  applicable  to  cities  of  the  lifth  and  sixth  classes  of 
municipalities  and  regulating  the  mode  of  exercising  the 
eminent  domain  power  was  held  special  and  void,  because 
this  is  not  a  part  of  municipal  organization  and  may  be  reg- 
elated by  general  laws  applicable  to  all  alike.98 

205«  Same — Minnesota. — Municipalities  may  be  clas- 
sified  in  this  state  according  to  population  where  there  is  a 
natural  connection  between  the  subject-matter  of  the  pro- 
jislation  and  the  number  of  inhabitants.'11'  In  1899 
the  constitution  was  amended  so  as  to  divide  cities  into 
classes  according  to  population  and  to  authorize  the  legis- 
lature to  pass  general  laws  relating  to  municipal  affairs  and 
to  limit  their  application  to  one  class  only.1  This  amend- 
ment was  held  not  to  repeal  prior  provisions  in  regard  to 
special  legislation,  but  simply  to  permit  legislation  confined 
to  one  of  the  classes  without  regard  to  any  relation  be- 
tween the  subject-matter  of  the  law  and  the  number  of  in- 
habitants.2 

206.  Same — Missouri. —  The  constitution  of  1875  con- 
tains the  following:  "The  general  assembly  shall  provide, 
by  general  laws,  for  the  organization  and  classification  of 

»6  Id.  Electric  &  W.  Co.,  74  Minn.  180,  77 

W  Bauer  v.  Williams,  118  Cal.  401,  N.  W.  180. 

50  Pae.  89L  l  Const.,  art.  4,  sec.  36. 

ina   v.  Stimson,  91  CaL  *  Alexander  v.  Duluth,  77  Minn. 

44.5.  80  N.  W.  02:3.     See  generally, 

v.     District    Court,    61  State  v.  Johnson.  77  Minn.  453,  80 

Minn.  648,  6-1  N.  W.  190;  Mr-Co  r-  N.  W.  620;  State  v.  Minor,  79  Minn. 

mirk  v.  West  Duluth,  47  Minn.  272,  201,  81  N.  W.  012. 

60  N.  W.  128;  Flynn  v.  Little  Falls 


GENEKAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


373 


cities  and  towns.  The  number  of  such  classes  shall  not  ex- 
ceed tour;  and  the  power  of  each  class  shall  be  defined  b}^ 
general  laws,  so  that  all  such  municipal  corporations  of  the 
same  class  shall  possess  the  same  powers  and  be  subject  to 
the  same  restrictions."3  Pursuant  to  this  provision  the  leg- 
islature divided  the  cities  and  towns  into  four  classes,  as 
follows:  1.  Those  having  a  population  of  100,000  or  over; 
2.  Those  having  30,000  to  100,000;  3.  Those  having  3,000 
to  30,000;  4.  Those  having  500  to  3,000.4  The  constitution 
also  made  provision  by  which  St.  Louis  was  authorized  to 
frame  its  own  charter,  and  also  provided  that  all  cities  of 
100,000  population  might  frame  and  adopt  their  own  char- 
ters. These  provisions  were  held  in  effect  to  make  two  ad- 
ditional classes.5  Acts  relating  to  St.  Louis  by  name  have 
been  held  valid.6 


3  Art.  9,  sec.  7. 

♦Murnane  v.  St.  Louis,  123  Mo. 
479,  27  S.  W.  711. 

5  Kansas  City  v.  Steguuller,  151 
Mo.  189,  52  S.  W.  723.  The  court 
says:  "Again,  we  think  it  is  plain 
that  the  framers  of  the  constitu- 
tion ex  vi  termini  excluded  from 
its  legislative  classification  the 
city  of  St.  Louis,  which  it  ex- 
pressly authorized  to  adopt  its  own 
scheme  and  charter,  and  all  such 
cities  as  it  authorized  by  section  16, 
article  IX,  to  frame  and  adopt  their 
own  charters.  These  cities  consti- 
tute two  constitutional  classes  dis- 
tinct from  those  chartered  and 
classified  by  the  legislature." 

"It  follows  that  the  legislature 
may  legislate  directly  for  these  con- 
stitutional cities  without  infring- 
ing the  constitution,  and  in  legis- 
lating therefor  it  does  not  create  a 
new  class  but  simply  provides  for 
a  class  created  by  the  constitution. 
Having     expressly     provided    for 


these  constitutional  cities,  and  hav- 
ing also  provided  in  section  15  of 
the  schedule  of  the  constitution, 
that  'the  general  assembly  shall 
pass  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary 
to  carry  this  constitution  into  full 
effect,'  it  has  become  a  settled  rule 
of  decision  in  this  court  that  no 
law  can  be  either  local  or  special 
within  the  meaning  of  the  consti- 
tution which  has  for  its  object  and 
purpose  the  carrying  out  of  the 
constitutional  command.  It  was 
and  is  apparent  that  these  excep- 
tional cities  were  not  to  be  left 
without  necessary  legislation  to 
govern  them  with  respect  to  their 
relations  and  obligations  to  the 
state  at  large.  As  to  subjects 
which  bear  upon  their  relation  to 
the  state  government  the  general 
assembly  can  by  general  law  pro- 
vide for  their  government."  p.  204. 
6  State  v.  Walton,  69  Mo.  556; 
Kenefick  v.  St.  Louis,  127  Mo.  1, 
29  S.  W.  838;  Walser  v.  Wear,  128 


:'.;i 


01  M  UAL    AND    SPECIAL    laws. 


have  been  sustained  which  were  limited  in  their 

opera  1  on  to  cities  of  L00,000  or  300,000  inhabitants,  St.  Louis 

the  only  one;  but  others  Limited  in  like  manner  have 

been  held  invalid.    As  there  would  seem  to  bcsomeconllict 

in  these  decisions,  they  are  referred  to  more  in  detail.    The 

.  ing  were  held  valid,  either  as  general  laws  or  as  in 
compliance  with  a  command  of  the  constitution:  An  act  to 
provide  Tor  official  stenographers  in  criminal  courts  having 
jurisdiction  of  felony  in  cities  of  100,000  inhabitants  or 
more;7  an  act  fixing  the  number  of  directors  in  public  school 

ds  and  providing  lor  their  election;8  an  act  to  provide 
tor  a  board  ol'  police  commissioners  and  the  appointment 
and  government  of  a  police  force;9  an  act  to  provide  for 
the  registration  of  voters;1"  an  act  to  provide  for  the  elec- 
tion, jurisdiction  and  compensation  of  justices  of  the  peace.11 
On  the  other  hand  the  following  were  held  to  be  local  or 
special  and  void:  An  act  in  relation  to  notaries;1-  an  act  re- 


Mo.  652,  :;i  S.  W.  37.  In  the  case 
Gnat  cited  an  act  to  divide  St.  Louis 
into  districts  and  to  provide  for 
the  election  of  justices  of  the 
peace  therein  was  held  valid,  and 
the  court  says:  "While  the  act  in 
que-tion,  when  viewed  simply  with 
reference  to  the  territory  in  which 
it  is  to  operate,  may  in  strictness 
be  classed  as  a  local  law,  yet  when 
it  is  considered  that  other  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution  have  so 
separated  the  city  of  St.  Louis 
from  other  territorial  divisions  of 
the  state  as  to  give  it  an  organi- 
zation different  from  that  of  any 
county  or  other  city,  thus  nei 
fating  legislation  applicable  to  it 
alone  and  which  cannot  he  made 
applicable  by  a  general  law.  we 
are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that 
t  of  ls?T,  providing  for  the 
on  of  justices  of  the  peace  in 
said  city,  is  not  such  a  local  law  as 


falls  within  the  prohibitions  of  sec- 
tions 53  and  54,  .supra."  pp.  558,  559. 

7  State  v.  Wofford,  121  Mo.  61,  25 
S.  W.  851.  The  ground  is  thus 
stated:  "A  statute  applicable  to  all 
cities  of  a  certain  population  is  a 
general  la%v  when  it  prescribes  a 
rule  for  future  government  in  all 
such  cities  as  may,  in  the  course  of 
time,  reach  the  requisite  popula- 
tion, and  is  not  restricted  by  its 
provisions  to  a  state  of  facts  then 
existing,  and  not  applicable  to  any 
other  city  which  may  in  future  at- 
tain that  population."    pp.  6*.  69. 

8  State  v.  Miller,  100  Mo.  430,  13 
S.  W.  677. 

9  State  v.  Mason,  153  Mo.  23,  54 
S.  W.  524. 

i°  State  v.  Mason,  155  Mo.  486,  55 
S.  W.  6  16. 

ii  State  v.  Higgins,  125  Mo.  364, 
28  S.  W.  038. 

'-State  v.  Herrman,  75  Mo.  340. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


375 


lating  to  local  improvements;13  an  act  to  provide  for  the 
establishment  of  boulevards  and  to  regulate  the  traffic 
thereon;14  an  act  relating  to  the  compensation  of  probate 
judges;15  an  act  relating  to  the  punishment  of  election 
frauds.16  In  Henderson  v.  Koenig  there  is  a  review  of  the 
cases  and  an  attempt  to  explain  them.17  And  in  the  last 
two  cases  referred  to,  which  are  very  recent,  it  is  held  that 
no  legislation  for  St.  Louis  as  a  class  is  valid,  if  on  a  subject 
where  a  general  law  exists  or  can  be  made  applicable. 

Acts  applying  to  one  of  the  legislative  classes  are  held 
valid,13  but  a  particular  act  applicable  to  cities  of  a  specified 
population,  which  does  not  correspond  with  either  of  the 


13  Murnane  v.  St.  Louis,  123  Mo. 
479,  27  S.  W.  711. 

"  St.  Louis  v.  Dorr,  145  Mo.  466, 
41  S.  W.  1094,  46  S.  W.  976.  68  Am. 
St,  Rep.  575,  42  L.  R.  A.  686. 

15  Henderson  v.  Koenig,  168  Mo. 
356,  68  S.  W.  72. 

lfi  State  v.  Anslinger,  171  Mo.  600, 
71  S.  W.  1041. 

17  The  court  says:  "  But  the  asser- 
tion is  made  that  cases  have  been 
decided  by  this  court  when  local 
or  special  legislation,  that  is  to  say, 
legislation  applicable  alone  to  the 
city  of  St.  Louis,  or  alone  to  Kan- 
sas City,  has  been  held  valid.  This 
is  true,  but  in  the  decisions  in  none 
of  these  cases  was  there  any  expres- 
sion or  ruling  which  impinges  in 
the  slightest  degree  on  the  consti- 
tutional prohibition  against  a  local 
or  special  law  being  enacted  where 
a  general  law  could  have  been 
made  applicable;  on  the  contrary, 
either  distinct  or  else  implied  recog- 
nition is  constantly  given  to  the  idea 
that,  owing  to  the  circumstances 
and  exigencies  of  the  particular 
case,  a  general  law  could  not  have 
been  made  applicable,  or  where  it 


could  not  have  been  made  appli- 
cable by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the 
legislation  questioned  waslthe  result 
of  direct  obedience  to  some  specific 
command  of  the  constitution.  This 
statement  will  be  found  to  embrace 
all  the  cases  decided  on  this  subject. 
In  this  case,  however,  there  is  no 
command  of  the  constitution  re- 
quiringthegeneral  assembly  to  reg- 
ulate respecting  the  compensation 
to  be  awarded  the  judge  of  probate 
of  the  city  of  St.  Louis.  Nor  is  there 
any  exigency  requiring  such  legis- 
lation and  confining  its  operation, 
as  does  this  act  in  question,  to  the 
city  of  St.  Louis  alone.  There  are 
cases  where  this  court  has  said  an 
act  would  have  been  valid  applied 
to  St.  Louis  by  name;  but  this 
court  has  never  said  this  of  an  act 
where  a  general  law  could  have 
been  made  applicable,  but  only  in 
cases  where  it  could  not."  Hender- 
son v.  Koenig,  168  Mo.  356,  376,  377, 
68  S.  W.  72. 

i8  Copeland  v.  St.  Joseph,  126  Mo. 
417,  29  S.  W.  281;  State  v.  Fleming, 
147  Mo.  1,  44  S.  W.  758. 


GEN]  i;  A!     ami    BP1  OIAL    LAWS, 


four  olasses,  creates  ;i  fifth  class  in  violation  of  the  const itu- 

and  is  void.19    It  is  also  held  that  laws  applicable  to  a 

of  oities  must  actually  operate  in  each  city  of  the  class 

and  cannot  be  left  to  operate  in  such  cities  only  as  may 

adopt  the  act   by  popular  vote.20 

Oities  under  Bpeoial  charters  are  held  to  constitute  a  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  class,-'1  and  an  act  authorizing  cities  under 
special  charters,  and  containing  more  than  30,000  and  less 
than  50,000  inhabitants,  to  construct  a  system  of  sewers, 
was  held  to  be  a  general  law  and  valid.22 

|  207.  Same  —  New  Jersey. —  The  constitution  forbids 
local  or  special  legislation  regulating  the  internal  affairs  of 
municipalities,  and  such  legislation  must  be  general  and 
applicable  to  all  alike,  except  where,  by  reason  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  substantial  difference  between  municipalities,  a 
general  law  would  be  inappropriate  to  some  while  it  would 
be  appropriate  to  others.  In  such  case  the  municipalities 
in  which  the  peculiarity  exists  would  constitute  a  class,  and 


19  State  v.  Borden,  164  Mo.  221, 64 
a  W. 

20  Owen  v.  Baer,  154  Mo.  434,  55 
&  W.  644  Tlie  court  says:  "That 
the  result  of  all  legislation  for  the 
several  classes  of  cities  was  tlie  ob- 
ject which  the  convention  had  in 
view  is  obvious.  It  says  'the  power 
of  each  class  shall  be  defined  by 
general  laws,' so  that  'all  municipal 

rations  of  the  same  class  shall 
the  same  powers.'    In  a  word, 
general  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  each  class,  but  see  to  it 
that  when  your  lawsgo  into  effect, 
hall  he  that  each 
-hall   at  all  times   have   the 
I  owera  and  be  subject  to  the 
provisions:  that  is  to  say.  you 
shall  not  go  through  the  form  of 
I  aasi  .1   laws  which  nom- 

inally confer  the  same  powers  upon 
at  which  inevitably 


produce  diverse  powers  the  mo- 
ment such  laws  are  put  into  prac- 
tical operation.  How  can  it  be 
said  that  when  this  act  went  into 
effect  in  West  port,  and  did  not  go 
into  operation  in  all  those  cities  of 
the  fourth  class  which  declined  to 
avail  themselves  of  it,  that  it  was 
uniform  in  all  cities  of  the  fourth 
class  ?  It  certainly  cannot  be  said 
by  the  suggestion  that  it  was  pos- 
sible for  all  cities  of  that  class  to 
adopt  it  and  thereby  again  bring 
about  the  uniformity  which  the 
adoption  by  some  and  neglect  to 
adopt   by   others   had   destroyed." 

p.  44a 

21  Murnane  v.  St.  Louis,  123  Ma 
479,  27  s.  \V.  711. 

--'  Rutherford  v.  Reddens,  82  Mo. 
Rutherford   v.   Bkmilton,  97 

Mo.  543,  11  S.  W.  249. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  377 

the  legislation  would  in  fact  be  general  because  it  would 
apply  to  all  to  which  it  would  be  appropriate.23  An  act 
concerning  inns  and  taverns  gave  the  court  of  common 
pleas  the  power  to  grant  such  license,  but  the  act  was  re- 
stricted to  cities,  towns  and  counties  by  population  so  as  to 
indicate  an  intention  that  it  should  operate  in  but  three 
small  towns  in  one  county.  It  was  objected  that  it  was 
local  and  special,  as  there  was  no  distinction  of  those  towns 
from  other  municipalities  which  would  in  any  reasonable 
degree  account  for  such  restriction.  The  court  held  the 
act  unconstitutional.24  The  court  said  the  constitutional 
provisions  against  special  or  local  laws  regulating  the  inter- 
nal affairs  of  municipal  corporations  and  political  divisions 
of  the  state  was  to  secure  uniformity.  "The  uniformity 
that  is  thus  sought  can  only  be  broken  by  classifications  of 
those  bodies  that  are  founded  on  substantial  differences, 
such  as  are  not  illusory  or  fraudulent  in  their  character."2' 
An  act  purporting  to  confer  on  cities  having  a  population 
of  twenty-five  thousand  a  power  of  issuing  bonds  to  fund 
their  floating  debt  was  held  special,  and  unconstitutional 
on  account  of  its  operation  being  restricted  to  cities  of  that 
magnitude.  There  was  deemed  to  be  no  connection  be- 
tween the  number  of  people  in  a  city  and  the  right  to  fund 
its  floating  debt.28  "Where  an  act  provided  for  a  change  in 
the  management  of  the  internal  affairs  of  towns  and  bor- 
oughs which  were  seaside  resorts  and  then  governed  by 

23  Van  Giesen  v.  Bloomfield,  47  tained  where  the  differences  are 
N.  J.  L.  442,  2  Atl.  249;  Hudson  v.  not  extreme,  but  exist.  The  test 
Buck,  51  N.  J.  L.  155,  16  Atl.  698;  would  not  then  be  judicial,  depend- 
Atlantic  City  W.  W.  Co.  v.  Con-  ing  on  whether  the  law  was  spe- 
sumers'  Water  Co.,  44  N.  J.  Eq.  427,  cial,  but  legislative,  whether  wise 
15  Atl.  581.  or  not.     Wheeler  v.  Philadelphia, 

24  Zeigler  v.  Gaddis,  44  N.  J.  L.  363.  77  Pa.  St.  338 ;  Kilgore  v.  Magee.  85 

25  Id. ;  Coutieri  v.  New  Brunswick,  id.  401 ;  Rutgers  v.  New  Brunswick, 
44  N.  J.  L.  58;  Reading  v.  Savage,  42  N.  J.  L.  51;  Skinner  v.  Collector, 
124  Pa.  St,  328.  id.  407;  Fellows  v.  Walker,  39  Fed. 

26  Anderson  v.  Trenton,  42  N.  J.  G51. 
L.  486.    A  classification  may  besus- 


Q]   M   i;  A  I      AMI    SI'l  OIAL     LAWS. 

ooramiss  the  court  held   it  came  within  the  consti- 

tutional   interdict     The    whole    statute   by  its  terms  was 
Bned  to  seaside  resorts  governed  by  boards  of  commis- 
l-s.     The  individuals  thus  grouped  into  a  class  by  legis- 
lative enactment  are  distinguished  from  other  municipali- 
by  these  two  features  only,  and  the  court  said:  "Conse- 
quently, no  legislation  touching  this  class  alone  is  constitu- 
tional, unless  it  properly  relates  to  these  peculiarities.     We 
cannot  see  how  the  section  under  review  is  so  related.    That 
the  power  to  expend  the  road  tax  of  a  municipality  on  its 
streets  should  be  vested  in  its  own  governing  body,  rather 
than  in  the  committee  of  the  township  of  which  its  terri- 
tory  forms  a  part,  is  a  proposition  which  seems  to  have  no 
natural  connection  with  the  facts  that  the  municipality  is  a 
irt,  and   that  its  governing   body  is  styled  a 
board  of  commissioners.'"23 

So  far  the  first  edition.  Since  that  edition  was  published 
there  have  been  numerous  decisions  in  the  state  arising  out 
of  the  constitutional  provision  in  question.  In  a  very  re- 
cent case  the  court  of  errors  and  appeals,  after  referring  to 
a  great  number  of  New  Jersey  cases,  says:  "The  principle 
deducible  from  all  the  decisions  above  cited  is  this:  that  the 

-•  Ross  v.  Winsor,  48  N.  J.  L.  95,  matter  of  the  legislation  all  cities 

Ail.  658.  are  a  class,  and  an  attempt  to  seg- 

'-'-  In  I  losson  v.  Trenton,  48  N.  J.  regate  cities  into  distinct  classes 

L.  438,  '•»  AtL  710.  the  act  in  ques-  for  this  purpose  by  a  standard  of 

tion  was  to  establish  a  license  and  population  is  not  classification  but 

apartment  in  certain  cities  an  arbitrary  selection  of  one  or  more 

containing  more  than  fifteen  thou-  localities."     Hightstown  v.  Glenn, 

I  inhabitants, and  in  which  the  -17  N.  J.  L.  105;  Gibbs  v.  Morgan, 

nting  of  licenses  is  not  already  39  N.  J.   Eq.  12G;  Tiger  v.  Morris 

of  exciseor  in  the  Common   Pleas,   42   N.  J.   L,  631; 

court  of  common  pleas.    It  was  held  Ernst  v.  Morgan,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  391; 

il  ftnd  special.     The  court  said:  Freeholders  v.  Stevenson,  46  N.  J. 

•  There  can  be  noreason  suggested  L.  173;  Alsbath  v.  Philbrick,  50  N. 

why  cities  with  more  than  fifteen  J.  L.  581,  15  AtL  587;  Bray  v.  Hud- 

thousand  inhabitants  should  have  son.  50  N.  J.  L  82.  10  AtL  135.    See 

,,i  granting  licenses  dif-  Dobbins  v.   Northampton,  50  N.  J. 

I    from  that  of  cities  with  a  L.  490,  14  AtL  587. 

I   ipolation.     In  respect  to  the 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  379 

legislation  which  classifies  municipalities  in  matters  of  their 
structure,  machinery  and  powers  on  a  basis  of  population, 
where  population  has  reasonable  relation  to  the  necessities 
of  the  municipalities  so  classified,  as  contradistinguished 
from  others  not  so  circumstanced,  is  good;  and  where  it  ap- 
pears that  such  is  the  actual  effect  of  the  statute,  the  act  is 
a  general  law,  and,  classification  being  solely  a  matter  of 
legislative  judgment,  a  legislative  classification  will  always 
prevail  when  it  appears  to  be  within  the  principle  above 
stated  and  there  is  no  apparent  attempt  to  apply  it  illu- 
sively."29   Many  recent  cases  are  of  the  same  purport.30 

In  1882  the  legislature  passed  an  act  making  three  classes 
of  cities,  as  follows:  First  class,  those  exceeding  100,000  pop- 
ulation; second  class,  those  containing  12,000  to  100,000; 
third  class,  those  with  less  than  12,000.31  In  1883  boroughs. 
and  villages  were  divided  into  three  classes:  First,  those 
with  more  than  3,000  population  ;  second,  those  with  1,500  to 
3,000;  third,  those  with  less  than  1,500.32  Where  the  subject- 
matter  of  legislation  bears  a  proper  relation  to  population, 

29 Hudson  County  v.  Clarke,  65  277,  21  Atl.  1026;  In  re  Haynes,  54 
N.  J.  L.  271,  279,  47  Atl.  478.  In  N.  J.  L.  6,  22  Atl.  923;  State  v. 
another  case  the  same  court  says:  Moore,  54  N.  J.  L.  121,  22  Atl.  993; 
"  That  our  cities  may  be  classified  In  re  Sewer  Assessment  for  Pas- 
on  the  basis  of  population,  under  saic,  54  N.  J.  L.  156,  23  Atl.  517; 
statutes  relating  to  municipal  af-  State  v.  Caminade,  55  N.  J.  L.  4,  25 
fairs,  when  population  bears  a  rea-  Atl.  933;  State  v.  Delaney,  55  N.  J. 
sonable  relation  to  the  subject-  L.  9,  25  Atl.  936;  State  v.  Ridge- 
matter  of  the  legislation,  has  fre-  way,  55  N.  J.  L.  10,25  Atl.  936; 
quently  been  decided,  but  such  State  v.  Gibson,  55  N.  J.  L.  11,  25 
relationship  exists  only  when  such  Atl.  935;  State  v.  Wescott,  55  N.  J. 
legislation  deals  with  the  structure  L.  78,  25  Atl.  269;  State  v.  Newark, 
or  machinery  of  municipal  govern-  57  N.  J.  L.  298,  30  Atl.  543;  Foley 
ment.  Classification  on  the  basis  v.  Hoboken,  61  N.  J.  L.  478,  38  Atl. 
of  population,  for  any  other  pur-  833;  McArdle  v.  Jersey  City,  66  N. 
pose  than  those  mentioned,  is  illu-  J.  L.  590,  49  Atl.  1013,  88  Am  St. 
sive  and  unsubstantial,  and  conse-  Rep.  496;  Grey  v.  Dover,  62  N.  J. 
quently  is  within  the  constitutional  L.  40,  40  Atl.  640. 
prohibition."  State  v.  Trenton,  62  3iL,aws  °f  1882,  p.  47. 
N.  J.  L.  795,  797,  44  Atl.  755.  »2  Laws  of  1883,  p.  157. 

3°  State   v.   Clayton,  53  N.  J.  L. 


3S0  QENl  BAL    AM>    BPECIAL    LAWS. 

acta  confined  in  their  operation  to  one  or  more  of  those 
classes  will  be  valid.11  Butitisheld  that  the  legislature  is  not 
confined  to  the  classes  so  established,  but  that  it  may  in 
each  act  establish  a  now  and  different  class,  appropriate  to 

the  particular  act,  Thus  an  aot  to  provide  for  the  construc- 
tion of  water-works  in  municipalities  of  not,  more  than  15,0UQ 
inhabitants,  nor  loss  than  500,  was  hold  valid.34  So  of  acts 
relating  to  cities  of  the  second  class  having  50,000  inhabit- 
ants or  more,88  or  to  all  cities  having  a  population  of  55,000 
to  100,000.*  This  would  seem  to  open  the  door  to  any 
number  of  overlapping  or  interlacing  classes,  and  to  an  in- 
finite diversity  of  organization  and  powers. 

It  also  appears  that  there  have  long  existed  in  this  state 
municipalities  under  the  names,  respectively,  of  cities,  bor- 
oughs, towns,  townships  and  villages,  and  that  the  existence 
of  municipalities  under  these  different  names  is  recognized 
in  the  constitution.  In  the  later  cases,  soon  to  be  cited,  they 
are  referred  to  as  common-law  classes  of  municipalities. 
There  is  no  uniformity  as  to  the  structure  and  powers  of 
those  under  one  name,  but  towns  with  substantially  the 
same  charters  are  sometimes  called  cities  and  sometimes 
boroughs,  towns  or  villages.  The  latter  are  generally 
smaller  and  have  a  less  complicated  government,  but  not 
always  It  is  held  by  the  highest  court  "that,  as  incorpo- 
rated cities,  boroughs,  towns  and  villages,  as  well  as  town- 
ships, are  recognized  by  the  constitution  as  classes  for  leg- 
islation, laws  limited  to  either  of  such  classes  will  not  violate 

33  In  re  Haynes,  54  K  J.  L.  G,  22  4,  25   Atl.  933;  State  v.  Gibson,  55 

Atl.  923;  In  re  Sewer  Assessment  N.  J.  L.  11,  25  Atl.  935;  State  v.  De- 

for  Passaio,  54  X.  J.  L.  156,  23  Atl.  laney,   55   N.  J.   L.  9,  25  Atl.  936; 

517:  State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L.  State  v.  Ridgeway,  55  N.  J.  L.  10. 

\tl.  513;  McArdle  v.  Jersey  25    Atl.    93G;  State   v.  Wescott,  55 

by,  66  X.  J.  1-   590,  19   All.    1013,  N.   J.   L.  78,  25   Atl.  269;  State  v. 

-  Am.  St.  Rep.   196.  Fury,  55  N.  J.  L.  1,  25  Atl.  934. 

ite  v.  Moore,  54  N.  J.  L.  121,  '"State   v.   Kremer,  62  N.  J.  L. 

483,  41  Atl.  711. 
ite  v.  Caminade,  55  N.  J.  L. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  3S1 

the  prohibition  of  private,  local  or  special  laws  regulating 
the  internal  affairs  of  towns  and  counties."37 

§  20S.  Same  —  Ohio.— Classification  based  upon  sub- 
stantial differences  in  population,  and  so  defined  as  to  in- 
clude cities  which  afterwards  attain  the  requisite  popula- 
tion, are  valid.38  Originally  municipalities  were  divided 
into  five  classes,  three  of  cities  and  two  of  villages.  But 
as  time  went  on  the  classes  were  increased  until  they  be- 
came very  numerous,  and  the  eleven  largest  cities  were 
provided  for  in  as  many  different  classes.  At  last  this 
classification  was  cut  up  by  the  roots  by  the  supreme  court, 
which  held  that  it  was  not  based  upon  differences  of  popu- 
lation or  upon  any  other  real  or  supposed  differences  in 
local  requirements.  "Its  real  basis,"  says  the  court,  "is 
found  in  the  differing  views  or  interests  of  those  who  pro- 
mote legislation  for  the  different  municipalities  of  the 
state."39  The  court  further  says  in  the  case  referred  to: 
"The  body  of  legislation  relating  to  this  subject  shows  the 
legislative  intent  to  substitute  isolation  for  classification,  so 
that  all  the  municipalities  of  the  state  which  are  large 
enough  to  attract  attention  shall  be  denied  the  protection 
intended  to  be  afforded  by  this  section  of  the  constitution. 
The  provisions  of  the  section  could  not  be  more  clear  or  im- 
perative, and  relief  from  the  present  confusion  of  munici- 
pal acts  and  the  burdens  which  they  impose  would  not  be 
afforded  by  its  amendment.  Since  we  cannot  hold  that 
legislative  power  is  in  its  nature  illimitable,  we  must  con- 
clude that  this  provision  of  the  paramount  law  annuls  the 

«  Hermann  v.  Guttenberg,  63  N.  Allison  v.  Crocker,  67  N.  J.  L.  596, 

J.  L.  616,  623,  44  Atl.  758,  affirming  52  Atl.  362.    • 

S.  C,  62  N.  J.  L.  605,  43  Atl.  703.  ™  State  v.  Baker,  55  Ohio  St.  1, 

To  same  effect,  State  v.  Wright,  54  44  N.  E.  516;  State  v.  Jones,  66  Ohio 

N.  J.  L.  130,  28  Atl.  116;  State  v.  St.  453,  64  N.  E.  424,  90  Am.  St.  Rep. 

Asbury  Park,  58  N.  J.  L.  604,  33  592. 

AtL  850;  Drew  v.  West  Orange,  64  3!>  State  v.  Jones.  66  Ohio  St.  453, 

N.  J.  L.  481,  45  Atl.  787:  Flock  v.  64  N.  E.  424,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  592; 

Smith,  65  N.  J.  L.  224,  47  Atl.  442;  State  v.  Beacon,  66  Ohio  St.  491,  04 

N.  E.  427,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  599. 


(.1  \  I  RAL    AM)    BPl  OIAL    l..\\\  s. 

acts  relating  to  Cleveland  and  Toledo,  if  they  confer  cor- 
porate power."  The  acts  in  question  were  conceded  to 
«  onfer  corporate  power,  and  were  held  void. 

Laws  making  a  class  of  all  cities  between  certain  narrow 
limits  of  population,  such  as  all  cities  of  the  fourth  grade, 
■\\A  class,  having  not  less  than  5,550  and  not  more  than 
1  inhabitants,  are  evasive  and  void.1"  An  act  relating  to 
itions,  which  applied  to  cities  of  certain  classes  but  ex- 
cepted Mansfield  and  cities  of  the  fourth  grade  in  the  first 

3S,  was  held  to  be  local  and  special  by  reason  of  the 
exception.41  An  act  authorized  any  city  of  the  third  grade 
of  the  first  class  to  construct  and  repair  bridges  over  any 
navigable  river  in  the  city.  Toledo  was  the  only  one  of  the 
class  which  had  such  a  river  and  the  only  city  to  which  it 
could  apply.     It  was  held  special  and  void.42 

g  209.  Same  — Pennsylvania.— The  constitution  of  1873 
forbade  the  passage  of  local  or  special  laws  "regulating  the 
affairs  of  counties,  cities,  townships,  wards,  boroughs,  or 
school  districts,"  or  "incorporating  cities,  towns  or  villages, 
or  changing  their  charters."43  In  1S74  the  legislature 
passed  a  classification  act,  declaring  that  "for  the  exercise 
of  certain  corporate  powers,  and  having  respect  to  the 
number,  character,  powers  and  duties  of  certain  officers 
thereof,  the  cities  now  in  existence  or  hereafter  to  be  created 
in  this  commonwealth  are  divided  into  three  classes."  The 
first  embraced  all  having  800,000  population  or  more,  the 
-ml,  all  having  100,000  and  less  than  300,000,  and  the 
third,  all  under  100,000.  A  scheme  of  government  was  * 
provided  for  each  class  but  the  act  did  not  operate  upon 
existing  cities  until  adopted  by  them.  At  the  time  the  act 
was  passed  Philadelphia  constituted  the  first  class  and  Pitts- 
burgh the  second.     This  act  and  its  classification  have  been 

«o  Kenton  v.  State,  52  Ohio  St.  59,  «  State  v.  Buckley,  GO  Ohio  St. 

.  r.  885;  Pittsburgh,  Ft.  W.  &  2T4,  54  N.  E.  272. 

I  .   1,'y.  Co.  v.   Martin,  53  Ohio  St.  «*PJatt  v.  Craig,  G6  Ohio  St  75, 

:    N.  E,  690;  Cart  v.  Carroll-  0:;  N.  I'.  594. 

ton,  -5  Ohio  C.  C.  1.  43  Art.  -5,  eec.  7. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  383 

sustained  in  numerous  cases.44  In  1S76  the  classes  were  in- 
creased to  five,  and  in  1887  to  seven.  In  Ayars  v.  Westfield,45 
these  acts  were  held  to  be  an  evasion  of  the  constitution 
and  void.  After  reviewing  cases  the  court  says:  "  Some  of 
the  cases  above  cited  have  been  quoted  at  considerable 
length  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  this  court  never  in- 
tended to  sanction  classification  as  a  pretext  for  local  or 
special  legislation.  On  the  contrary,  the  underlying  prin- 
ciple of  all  the  cases  is  that  classification  with  the  view  of 
legislating  for  either  class  separately  is  essentially  uncon- 
stitutional unless  a  necessity  therefor  exists;  a  necessity 
springing  from  manifest  peculiarities  clearly  distinguishing 
those  of  one  class  from  each  of  the  other  classes,  and  imper- 
atively demanding  legislation  for  each  class  separately  that 
would  be  useless  and  detrimental  to  the  others.  Laws  en- 
acted in  pursuance  of  such  classification,  and  for  such  pur- 
poses, are,  properly  speaking,  neither  local  nor  special. 
They  are  general  laws,  because  they  apply  alike  to  all  that 
are  similarly  situated  as  to  their  peculiar  necessities.  All 
legislation  is  necessarily  based  on  a  classification  of  its  sub- 
jects, and  when  such  classification  is  fairly  made,  laws  en- 
acted in  conformity  thereto  cannot  be  properly  character- 
ized as  either  local  or  special."  And  referring  to  the  act  of 
1874  the  court  further  says:  "As  to  the  number  of  classes 
created,  that  act  appears  to  have  covered  the  entire  ground 
of  classification.  It  provided  for  all  existing  as  well  as  every 
conceivable  prospective  necessity.  It  is  impossible  to  sug- 
gest any  legislation  that  has  or  may  hereafter  become  nec- 
essar}'  for  any  member  of  either  class,  that  cannot  without 
detriment  to  other  members  of  the  same  class  be  made 
applicable  to  all  of  them.  If  classification  had  stopped 
where  the  act  of  1874  left  it,  it  would  have  been  well,  but 

«  Wheeler  v.  Philadelphia,  77  Pa.  Harris  Tp.,  160  Pa.  St.  494.  28  AtL 

St.  338;  Kilgore  v.  Magee,  85  Pa,  927:  Commonwealth  v.   Hanley,  15 

St.  401.  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  271;  Commonwealth 

«  122  Pa.  St.  266,  16  Atl.  366,  2  L.  v.  Mintz,  19  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  283. 
R.  A.  577.     Also  Lackawana  Tp.  v. 


8S  1  GEN]   B  A  I.     AM>    BPBOIAL     LAWS. 

it  did  not  Without  the  slightest  foundation  in  necessity 
the  number  of  classes  was  Boon  increased  to  five,  and  after- 
wards to  seven;  and,  if  the  vicious  principle  on  which  this 
was  done  be  recognized  by  tin'  courts,  the  number  may  at 
any  time  be  further  inoreased  until  it  equals  the  number  of 
cities  in  the  commonwealth.  The  only  possible  purpose  of 
Buoh  classification  is  evasion  of  the  constitutional  limitation; 
and,  as  such,  it  ought  to  be  unhesitatingly  condemned." 
The  necessity  for  classification  and  the  extent  thereof,  and 
whether  a  law  is  local  or  special,  are  held  to  be  judicial 
questions. 

Acts  not  relating  to  municipal  purposes  are  invalid  if 
limited  in  their  operation  to  a  class  of  cities.46  An  act  re- 
lating to  the  collection  of  taxes  of  all  kinds,  municipal  and 
otherwise,  and  limited  in  its  operation  to  cities  of  the  third 
.  was  held  local  and  special.47  The  court  says:  "  Classi- 
fication has  been  upheld  for  municipal  purposes  only.  Legis- 
lation for  a  class  of  cities  is  only  general  and  valid  under 
our  constitution  when  it  relates  to  some  municipal  purpose. 
If  it  does  not  affect  the  exercise  of  some  municipal  power, 
or  the  number,  character,  powers  and  duties  of  municipal 
officers,  or  the  regulation  of  some  subject  within  the  appro- 
priate range  of  municipal  control,  the  legislation  is  local 
and  unconstitutional." 

So  lonir  as  the  classes  are  not  made  so  numerous  as  to  be 
evasive  of  the  constitution,  it  is  for  the  legislature  to  say 
where  the  lines  shall  be  drawn  and  what  differences  shall 
exist  between  the  schemes  of  government  for  the  several 
classes.48 

The  act  of  1874,  heretofore  referred  to,  provided  that 

<6Ruan  St.  Opening,  132  Pa.  St.  Philadelphia  v.  Pepper,  18  Phila. 

257,  19   Atl.  21!),   7   L.   R.   A.   1913;  419. 

Wyoming  St.,  137   Pa.  St.  494,  21  <?  Van  Loon  v.  Engle,  171  Pa.  St. 

Atl.  74;  Pittsburgh's  Petition,   138  157,   33  Atl.  77.     To   same    effect, 

401,  21   Atl.  761;  Safe  De-  Scranton  v.  Whyte,  148  Pa.  Si.  419, 

.v  Trust  Co.  v.  Fricke,  152  Pa.  23  Atl.  1043. 

!,    25    Atl.    530;     McKay    v.  «« Commonwealth    v.    Moir,    199 

r,  152  Pa  St.  242,  25  Atl.  534;  Pa.  St.  534,  49  Atl.  351,  85  Am.  St. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


385 


when  a  city  attained  to  the  population  of  the  class  above 
it,  it  should,  upon  the  filing  of  a  certain  certificate  of  the 
fact  by  the  governor,  pass  at  once  into  the  new  class,  and 
that  its  corporate  powers  and  the  number,  character,  powers 
and  duties  of  its  officers  should  remain  the  same,  except  as 
otherwise  provided  in  the  general  act.  It  is  held  that  on 
the  transition  of  a  city  to  a  new  class  all  special  laws  per- 
taining to  the  city  in  conflict  with  the  general  law  for  such 
cities  are  left  behind.49 

It  is  held  that  an  act  relating  to  a  class  of  cities,  which  is 
to  operate  only  in  the  cities  which  adopt  it,  tends  to  pro- 
duce diversity  and  is  void.50 

§  210.  Same  — Other  states.— The  courts  of  the  various 
states,  as  a  general  rule,  sustain  the  right  of  the  legislature 
to  classify  cities  according  to  population,  where  the  classifi- 
cation is  based  upon  substantial  differences  in  population  and 
is  so  made  as  to  include  cities  afterwards  attaining  the  req- 
uisite population.51     "  The  classes  cannot  be  made  so  numer- 


Rep.  801.  The  court  says:  "  Classi- 
fication, therefore,  is  based  on  dif- 
ference of  munici[al  affairs,  and 
so  long  as  it  relates  to  and  deals 
with  such  affairs,  the  questions  of 
where  the  lines  shall  be  drawn 
and  what  differences  of  system 
shall  be  prescribed  for  differences 
of  situation  are  wholly  legislative. 
What  is  a  distinction  without  a 
difference  is  largely  matter  of 
opinion.  No  argument,  for  exam- 
ple, could  be  more  plausible  than 
there  is  no  real  difference  in  mu- 
nicipal needs  between  a  city  of 
99,000  and  one  of  100,000  popula- 
tion. It  is  a  sufficient  answer  that 
the  line  must  be  drawn  somewhere, 
and  the  legislature  must  determine 
where.  So  long  as  it  is  drawn  with 
reference  to  municipal  and  not  to 
irrelevant  or  wholly  local  matters, 
25 


the  courts  have  no  authority  to  in- 
terfere."    p.  545. 

49  Commonwealth  v.  Macferron, 
152  Pa.  St.  244,  25  Atl.  556. 

50  Commonwealth  v.  Reynolds, 
137  Pa.  St.  389,  20  Atl.  1011.  See 
ante,  §  201. 

51  Crovatt  v.  Mason,  101  Ga.  246, 
28  S.  E.  891;  Owen  v.  Sioux  City, 
91  Iowa,  190,  59  N.  W.  3;  Tuttle  v. 
Polk,  92  Iowa,  433,  60  N.  W.  733; 
Cummings  v.  Chicago,  144  111.  563, 
33  N.  E.  854;  Indianapolis  v.  Navin, 
151  Ind.  139,  47  N.  E.  525,  41  L.  R. 
A.  337;  Smith  v.  Indianapolis  St. 
Ry.  Co.,  158  Ind.  425,  63  N.  E.  849; 
State  v.  Standley,  76  Iowa,  215,  40 
N.  W.  815;  Topeka  v.  Gillett.  32 
Kan.  431,  4  Pac.  800;  Newman  v. 
Emporia,  41  Kan.  583,  21  Pac.  593; 
Preston  v.  Louisville,  84  Ky.  118: 
Brown  v.  Holland,  97  Ky.  249,  30 


f]  i;  \i      \\l>    BP]  OIAL    LAWS. 

ous  that  it  would  require  a  separate  Btatute  For  each  Beparate 
corporation  ;  nor  oould  any  supposed  class  be  so  specifically 
named  or  defined  that  only  one  particular  corporation  could 
conn-  within  Buch  name  or  definition;  for  in  either  such  case 
the  statute  itself  would  be  special  and  not  general."62 

constitution  of  Kentucky  of  189J  providesas  follows: 
••  The  cities  and  towns  of  this  commonwealth,  for  the  purpose 
of  their  organization  and  government,  shall  be  divided  into 
six  classes.  The  organization  and  powers  of  each  class  shall 
be  defined  and  provided  for  by  general  laws,  so  that  all  mu- 
nicipal corporations  of  the  same  class  shall  possess  the  same 
power  and  be  subject  to  the  same  restrictions."53  The  con- 
stitution designates  the  six  classes  by  population,  and  pro- 
vides that  the  general  assembly  shall  assign  the  cities  and 
towns  of  the  state  to  the  classes  to  which  they  respectively 
belong  and  shall  change  the  assignments  made  as  the  popu- 
lation may  increase  or  decrease.  The  legislature  assigned 
Pineville  to  the  fourth  class,  which  embraced  cities  of  from 
3,000  to  8,000  inhabitants.  The  census  of  1890  gave  it  but 
It  was  held  that  only  the  legislature  could  change 
the  assignment,  and  that  its  right  to  an  organization  under 
the  law  for  cities  of  the  fourth  class  could  not  be  tried  in  a 
quo  warranto  proceeding.54  Where  an  act  applies  to  all 
cities  having  a  certain  population,  it  is  prospective  and  will 
embrace  cities  thereafter  attaining  that  population.55 

As  to  the  province  and  effect  of  classification  acts  the 

S.  W.    629;    Nichols  v.  Walter,  37  12  S.  W.  321;  Boyd   v.  Milwaukee, 

Minn.  204,  33  N.  W.   800;  Allen  v.  92  Wis.  456,  6G  N.  W.  603;  Wait  v. 

Pioneer  Press,  40  Minn.  117,  41  N.  Santa  Cruz,  75  Fed.  'JOT;  Wait  v. 

W.  936;  Cobb  v.    Bord,   40   Minn.  Santa  Cruz,  89  Fed.  619. 

.     -.    \V.  390;  Rutherford  v.  5- Topeka  v.  Gillett,  32  Kan.  431, 

Hamilton,  97  Mo.  543,  11  S.  W.  249;  434,  4  Pac.  800. 

-i  u ht,  52  Neb.  209,  71  N.  W.  83  Const.  1891,  sec,  156. 

pie  v.  Squire,  14  Daly,  154;  M  Green   v.    Commonwealth,   95 

ling  v.  Savage,  124  Pa  St.  328,  Ky.  23a  24  S.  W.  610. 

16  Atl.  788;  Beaver  Co.  v.  Indexes,  6  M  Kansas  City  v.  Stegmiller,  151 

Cook   v.  State,  90  Mo.  189,  52  S.  W.  723;  Boyd  v.  Mil- 

Tenn.  407,  16  S.  W.  471,  13  L  EL  A.  waukee,  92  Wis.  45G,  C6  N.  W.  603. 
442;  Johnson  v.  Martin,  75  Tex.. 83, 


GENEKAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  387 

supreme  court  of  New  Jersey,  referring  to  the  classification 
act  of  that  state,  says:  "It  is  a  mere  formula,  a  convenient 
method  by  which  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  words  and  nu- 
merals when  legislating  for  or  interpreting  enactments  con- 
cerning municipalities.  Beyond  this  it  is  incapable  of  ex- 
ercising any  controlling  effect  upon  either  the  legislature  or 
the  courts.  It  does  not  extend  the  power  of  the  one,  nor 
limit  that  of  the  other;  it  may  be  ignored  without  impairing 
legislation,  and  its  employment  will  not  in  the  least  degree 
tend  to  legitimize  legislation  otherwise  vicious  in  a  consti- 
tutional sense."  K 

§  211.  For  what  purposes  the  classification  of  munici- 
palities is  permissible. — The  question  is  thus  answered  by 
the  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania:  "  This  \s,  therefore,  the 
test  by  which  to  determine  the  validit}7  of  a  law  relating  to 
a  given  class  of  cities.  If  it  relates  to  subjects  of  munici- 
pal concern  only,  it  is  constitutional,  because  operating 
upon  all  the  members  of  the  class  it  is  a  general  law.  If  it 
relates  to  subjects  of  a  general,  as  distinguished  from  a  mu- 
nicipal, character,  it  is  local,  and  therefore  invalid,  although 
it  may  embrace  all  the  members  of  the  class.57  In  New 
Jersey  it  is  held  to  be  the  settled  law  of  the  state  that 
"  with  regard  to  structural  forms  of  government  and  admin- 
istration, the  municipalities  of  the  state  may  be  distributed, 
for  legislative  purposes,  into  classes  constructed  on  the  basis 
of  population ; "  and  that  it  is  only  when  legislation  "  relates 
to  something  manifestly  foreign  to  the  distinctive  grade  of 

86  State  v.  Wescott,  55  N.  J.  L.  sification  act  of  cities  and  counties. 
78,  80,  25  Atl.  269.  To  same  effect,  The  classification  act  is  simply  a 
State  v.  Connelly,  G6  N.  J.  L.  197,  method  of  convenient  reference  to 
48  Atl.  955,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  469;  counties  by  population,  by  refer- 
Hudson  County  Freeholders  v.  ring  to  such  act  instead  of  designat- 
Clarke,  65  N.  J.  L.  271,  47  Atl.  478.  ing  in  the  statute  itself  the  pop- 
In  the  last  case  the  court  says:  "If  ulation  of  the  counties  or  munici- 
a  classification  would  be  illusory  if  palities  to  which  it  is  to  apply.'' 
it  were  based  upon  population  defi-  p.  276. 

nitely  stated,  it  is  equally  illusory        s7Scranton  v.  Whyte,  148  Pa.  St. 

if  based  upon  reference  totheclas-  419,  426,  23  Atl.  1043. 


Q]  m  i:  \i.    \ND   BPEOIAL    laws. 


the  oitiea  to  which  it  is  applied,"  that  it  is  special  and 
void.-"  Many  other  oases  to  the  same  effeot  will  be  found 
referred  to  in  the  preceding  Beotions.*9 

The  reason  upon  which  classification  is  founded  is  that 
oities  of  widely  differenl  population  have  different  needs 
and  conditions  which  render  necessary  corresponding  differ- 
ences in  their  corporate  powers  and  in  the  number,  char- 
r,  powers  and  duties  of  the  officers  by  whom  the  mu- 
nicipal government  is  to  be  conducted  and  its  necessities 
provided  for.*50  Where  the  reason  ceases  to  operate  classi- 
fication by  population  ceases  to  be  valid. 

Acts  relating  to  primary  and  general  elections  and  the 
ration  of  voters  may  be  made  applicable  to  one  or 
more  classes  of  cities.61  So  of  acts  relating  to  the  election 
or  appointment  of  municipal  officers  or  boards,  or  to  their 
terms  of  otlice,  powers,  duties  or  compensation. '-  But  the 
decisions  do  not  seem  to  be  uniform  even  in  the  same  state. 


»8  St  ate  v.  Caminade.  55  N.  J.  L. 
•1,  25  Atl.  933.  Continuing  the 
court  says:  "This  principle  leaves 
it  to  t  lie  legislature  to  create  or  to 
modify,  in  general,  the  institutions 
i..  each  cla-sof  our  cities  as  it  may 
deem  expedient,  and  such  institu- 
tions may  differ  in  all  respects,  or 
in  some  respects,  from  those  exist- 
ing in  cities  of  other  grades,  pro- 
vided the  differentiation  thus  in- 
troduced is  not  demonstrably  eva- 
sive of  the  constitutional  provision 
in  der  discussion."    p.  G. 

State  v.  Newark,  57  N. 
J.  L.  298,  30  Atl.  543;  Foley  v.  II  o- 
boken.  61  N.  J.  L.  478,  38  Atl.  833; 
Ruan  Street  Opening,  182  Pa.  St. 
19  Atl.  210,  7  L.  R  A.  103; 
Wyoming  Street,  137  Pa.  St.  494, 
21  AtL  74:  Commonwealth  v.  Moir, 
109  Pa  St.  634,  40  Atl.  851,  86  Am. 
St  Rep,  80L 
60  Ruan  Street  Opening,  132  Pa, 


St.  257,  19  Atl.  219,  7  L.  R  A.  108; 
State  v.  Caminade,  55  N.  J.  L.  4,  25 
Atl.  933. 

61  State  v.  Fleming,  147  Mo.  1,  44 
S.  W.  758;  Slate  v.  Mason,  155  Mo. 
486,  55  S.  W.  6,6;  Ladd  v.  Holmes, 
40  Ore.  167.  66  Pac.  714;  Cook  v. 
State,  90  Tenn.  407,  16  S.  W.  471,  13 
L.  R.  A.  44a 

62  Crovatt  v.  Mason,  101  Ga.  246, 
28  S.  E.  891;  State  v.  Mason,  153 
Mo.  23,  54  S.  W.  524;  In  re  Haynes, 

54  N.  J.  L.  6,  22  Atl.  923;  State  v. 
Fury,  55  N.  J.  L.  1,  25  Atl.  084; 
State  v.  Caminade,  55  N.  J.  L.  4, 
25  Atl.  933;  State  v.  Gibson,  55  N.  J. 
L.  11,  25  Atl.  985;  State  v.  Delaney, 

55  N.  J.  L.  9,  25  Atl.  936;  State  v. 
Ridgeway,  55  N.J.  L.  10,  25  Atl. 
936;  State  v.  Kremer,  62  N.  J.  L. 
483,  41  Atl.  711:  State  v.  Conelly, 
66  X.  J.  L.  107,  48  Atl.  055,  88  Am. 
St.  Rep.  469. 


GENERAL   AND   SPECIAL    LAWS.  389 

An  act  relating  to  the  consolidation  of  offices  and  to  the 
terms,  duties  and  compensation  of  officers,  and  limited  to 
cities  of  the  second  class  having  less  than  35,000  population, 
was  held  special  and  void  because  there  was  no  reason  win7 
it  should  not  apply  to  cities  of  more  or  less  population.63 
The  same  ruling  was  made  upon  an  act  providing  that  in 
cities  of  the  first  class  municipal  officers  should  be  elected 
on  the  same  day  and  voted  for  on  the  same  ballot  as  state 
and  county  officers.  It  was  said  that  if  an  evil  existed  in 
the  old  system  it  existed  in  all  municipalities,  and  that  the 
remedy  should  extend  to  all.64  An  act  changing  the  method 
of  appointing  the  city  physician  in  cities  of  the  second  class 
was  held  void  because  there  was  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  apply  to  all  classes.65 

Acts  relating  to  gas  and  water  supply  and  similar  public 
services  may  be  limited  to  a  class.66  And  so  of  acts  relating 
to  local  improvements.67  But  acts  or  provisions  as  to  pro- 
cedure in  condemnation  cases,  or  in  the  assessment  of  dam- 
ages and  benefits,  or  as  to  the  lien  of  assessments,  are  held 
to  relate  to  subjects  of  a  general  nature,  and  such  legisla- 

63  State  v.  Orange,  60  N.  J.  L.  Ill,  which  the  middle  class  is  separated 
36  Atl.  706.  from  the  others."    p.  552. 

64  State  v.  O'Donnell,  60  N.  J.  L.  «*  in  re  Haynes,  54  N.  J.  L.  6,  23 
35,  37  Atl.  72.  Atl.  923;  State  v.  Moore,  54  N.  J.  L. 

^State  v.  Simon,  53  N.  J.  L.  550,  121.   22   Atl.   993;  Flynn  v.   Little 

22  Atl.  120.     The  court  says:  "In  Falls  Elec.  &  Water  Co.,  74  Minn, 

this  case  there  has  been  no  reason  180,  77  N.  W.   ISO.     Contra,  Van 

assigned,  nor   is  it  apparent,  why  Fleet,   V.    C,  in    Atlantic  Water 

an  officer  known  as  city  physician,  Works  Co.  v.  Consumers'  Water  Co., 

in  a  city  of  the  second  class,  should  44  N.  J.  Eq.  427,  15  Atl.  581. 

have  a  different  appointment,  with  67Cummings  v.  Chicago,  144  111. 

a  term  fixed   by  the  mayor  and  563,  33  N.  E.  854;  Tuttle  v.  Polk,  92 

with  an  annual  salary  to  be  allowed  Iowa,  433,60  N.  W.  733;  State  v. 

by  the  legislative  body  confirming  District  Court,  61  Minn.  542,  64  N. 

the  appointment,  from  a  physician  W.  190;  Rutherford  v.  Heddens,  82 

to  be  appointed  and  compensated  Mo.  388;  Rutherford  v.  Hamilton, 

in  a  city  of  the  first  class,  or  of  the  97  Mo.  543,  11  S.  W.  249;  Scran  ton 

third    class.      Population    cannot  v.  Whyte,  148  Pa.  St.  419,  23  Atl. 

have  any  just  reference  to  this  dis-  1043. 
tinction  between  tiiese  classes  by 


I  1:  \l.    AM'    MM  CIAI.    LAWS. 

tion,  limited  to  a  class  of  municipalities,  is  hold  to  be  spe- 
cial and  void."  An  act  which  permitted  the  formation  of 
companies  to  construct  and  maintain  sewerage  systems,  on 
consent  of  one-half  the  owners  of  real  estate  in  the  munici- 
pality and  the  consent  of  the  municipality,  was  amended  so 
as  to  permit  such  companies  to  operate  in  cities  of  the  third 
class  on  consent  of  the  municipality  alone.  The  amend- 
ment was  held  special  and  void.69  The  same  ruling  was 
made  upon  an  act  which  permitted  cities  of  the  second  class 
to  defray  the  cost  of  repaving  streets  by  an  issue  of  bonds 
to  be  paid  by  a  general  tax.70 

The  following  acts,  limited  in  operation  to  a  class  of 
cities,  were  held  valid:  For  the  regulation  of  undertakers;71 
for  the  regulation  of  junk  and  second-hand  dealers;72  re- 
specting  licenses;73  fixing  the  number  of  school  directors 
and  providing  for  their  election;74  for  dividing  cities  into 
wards  anil  election  districts;75  establishing  a  police  court;76 
authorizing  an  extension  of  boundaries;77  authorizing  the 
issue  of  bonds  to  refund  indebtedness;"  to  establish  an  ex- 
cise department;79    regulating  the  liquor  traffic;80  relating 

68  Pasadena  v.   Stimson,  91  Cat.  75State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L. 

:  Pac.  G04;  Wain  v.  Beverley,  298,  30  Atl.  343;  State  v.  Atlantic 

.  J.  L.  544,  26  Atl.  709;  Wyo-  City,  56  N.  J.  L.  232,  28  Atl.  427. 

rmng  Street.  137  Pa.  St.  494.  21  Atl.  76  State  v.  Carainade,  53  N.  J.  L. 

74;  Pittsburgh's  Petition,   138  Pa.  4,25  Atl.  933;  State  v.  Wescott,  55 

St.  401.  21  Atl.  7G1.  N.  J.  L.  78,  25  Atl.  2(i9. 

b9  State  v.  Plain  field,  54  N.  J.  L.  "  Copeland  v.  St.  Joseph,  126  Mo. 

.  1  Atl.  494.  417,  29  S.  YV.  281. 

•« Foley  v.  Hoboken,  61  N.  J.  L.  «  Waite  v.  Santa  Cruz,  75  Fed. 

3  Ail.  833.  967;  Waite  v.  Santa  Cruz,  89  Fed. 

71  Commonwealth  v.  Hanley,  15  619. 

Pa.  Supr.  Ct  271.  ™McArdle  v.  Jersey  City,  66  N. 

inmon wealth  v.Mintz,  19 Pa.  J.  L.  590,  49  Atl.   1013,  88  Am.  St. 

Supr.  Ct.  283.  Rep.  496;  State  v.  Guttenberg.  62 

w Johnson  v.  Asbury  Park,  58  N.  N.  J.  L.  605,  43  Atl.  703;  S.  C,  af- 

J.  L.  604.  38  .Ml.  850;  8.  C, affirmed,  firmed.  63  N.  J.  L.  616,  44  Atl.  758. 

:;  J.  L,  127,  89  Atl.  69a  8U  State  v.  Glenn,  47  N.  J.  L.  105; 

M  State  v.  Miller,  1UU  Mo.  439,  13  State  v.  Staats,  54  N.  J.  L.  286,  23 

s.  W.  677.  Atl.  667. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  391 

to  the  use  of  streets  by  railroad  companies;81  exempting 
cities  of  the  first  class  from  giving  bond  in  case  of  appeal;8' 
providing  for  disincorporation.83 

On  the  other  hand  the  following  acts,  limited  in  like 
manner,  were  held  local,  or  special  and  void,  because  of  the 
limitation:  Eelating  to  the  collection  of  debts  and  enforc- 
ing of  judgments;84  limiting  the  time  for  commencing  suit 
in  certain  cases;85  requiring  fire-escapes  on  certain  classes 
of  buildings; 86  relating  to  liens  and  the  collection  of  debts;87 
providing  a  special  mode  for  the  construction  and  repair  of 
high  school  buildings; 88  providing  for  the  collection  of  taxes 
of  all  kinds;89  providing  for  a  board  of  equalization  and  as- 
sessment for  purposes  of  taxation ; 90  regulating  the  manner 
of  receiving  and  paying  fees  for  official  services  and  designed 
to  protect  the  municipality  from  loss;91  relating  to  nota- 
ries;92 fixing  the  term  of  office  of  clerk  and  collector  of 
taxes;93  fixing  the  punishment  for  election  frauds;94  for- 
bidding the  establishment  of  a  cemetery  within  one  mile  of 
the  city  limits,  the  drainage  of  which  is  into  a  stream  from 

si  Burlington  v.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.,  87  Philadelphia    v.    Haddington, 

56  N.  J.  Eq.  259,  38  Atl.  849;  S.  G,  115  Pa.  St.  291,  8  Atl.  241 ;  Philadel- 

affirmed,  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  phia  v.  Pepper,  18  Phila.  419. 

Burlington,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  547,  43  Atl.  88  state  v.  Trenton,  61  N.  J.  L. 

<00.  484,  40  Atl.  442;  S.  C,  affirmed,  62 

82  McClay  v.  Lincoln,  32  Neb.  412,  N.  J.  L.  795,  44  Atl.  755. 

49  N.  W.  282.  89  Van  Loon  v.  Engle,  171  Pa,  St. 

83Mintzer  v.   Schilling,  117  Cal.  157,  33  Atl.  77. 

361,  49  Pac.  209.  so  Gaylor  v.    Hubbard,   56  Ohio 

8*  Betz  v.  Philadelphia,  19  Phila.  St.  25,  46  N.  E.  66.     But  see  In  re 

452.  Sewer  Assessment  for  Passaic,  54 

85Gorley   v.  Louisville,    104  Ky.  N.  J.  L.  156,  23  Atl.  517. 

372,  47  S.    W.    263;   Louisville  v.  91  Rauer  v.  Williams,  118  Cal.  401, 

Kuntz,  104  Ky.  584,  47  S.  W.  592;  50  Pac.  691. 

Louisville  v.  Hegan,  20  Ky.  L.  R.  y2  State  v.  Hermann,  75  Mo.  340. 

1532,  49  S.  W.  532.  93  Canfield  v.  Davies,  61  N.  J.  L. 

86  Cincinnati    v.    Steinkamp,    54  26.  39  Atl.  357. 

Ohio  St.  284,  43  N.  E.  490.    Contra,  94  State  v.  Anslinger,  171  Mo.  600, 

Cincinnati  v.  Steinkamp,  9  Ohio  C.  71  S.  W.  1041. 
C.  178. 


GENU  R  \1.    AM>    BPSOIAL     LAWS. 

which  a  water  supply  is  obtained;*  providing  for  the  pro- 
tection of  life  and  property.98 

§  212.  Municipalities  uuder  special  charters. —  An  act 
providing  in  Bubstance  that  all  cities  and  towns  theretofore 
incorporated  under  special  acts  ;n:d  charters,  and  which  did 
not  then  possess  the  power  to  sell  personal  and  real  prop- 
erty for  taxes,  should  thereafter  have  and  possess  such 
power,  was  held  general  and  constitutional.  Though  it  did 
not  apply  to  all  cities  and  towns  in  the  state,  it  was  not 
therefore  unconstitutional;  other  cities  and  towns  possessed 
that  power,  and  the  act  in  question  brought  the  class  to 
which  it  applied  into  harmony  with  them.  As  the  act  ap- 
plied to  all  cities  and  towns  in  the  state  falling  within  the 
specified,  not  to  make  an  exceptional  rule,  but  to  re- 
move an  exception,  it  was  not  local  or  special,  but  of  uni- 
form operation.97  Whether  municipalities  under  special 
charters  may  constitute  a  class  for  legislative  purposes  is  a 
question  upon  which  there  seems  to  be  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion. In  New  Jersey  it  is  held  that  a  classification  of  cities 
based  upon  previous  local  legislation  is  vicious.93  The  court 
says:  "The  recognition  of  such  local  legislation  by  relying 
upon  it  as  a  foundation  for  new  legislation  which  only 
changes,  perpetuates  or  perhaps  increases  the  previous  local 
or  special  features  created  by  special  charters,  is  as  inimical 
to  the  constitutional  provision  as  if  the  last  legislation  cre- 
ated the  diversity  which  it  perpetuates."  "  The  contrary  has 
been  held  in  Wisconsin.1     A  statute  permitting  any  city  or- 

«  Philadelphia    v.    Westminster  land,  56  N.  J.  L.  364,  28  Atl.  599; 

Cem.  Co.,  162  Pa.  St.  105.  29  Atl.  349.  State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L.  83,  30 

se  Stat.-  v.  Ketler,  65  Ohio  St.  558,  Atl.  186;  Grey  v.  Union,  67  N.  J.  L. 

63  N.  E.  1135.  363.  51  Atl.  482. 

s7  Haskel  v.  Burlington.  30  Iowa,  M  State  v.  New  Brunswick,  47  N. 

.:  Towa  Land  Co.  v.  Soper,  39  id.  J.  L.  479,  484,  485,  1  Atl.  496. 

Bumsted  v.  Govern,  47  N.  J.  L.  l  Johnson  v.  Milwaukee.  88  Wis. 

affirmed.  48  id.  612,  383,  60  N.  W.  270;  Appleton  W.  W. 

9  Atl.  577.     See  also  State  v.  Sulli-  Co.  v.  Appleton.  116  Wis.  363,  93  N. 

van.  62  Minn.  2^5.  64  N.  W.  818.  W.  262;  Sclnntsen  v.  La  Crosse,  117 

ite  v.  New  Brunswick,  17  N.  Wis.  156. 
J.  L.  479,  1   Atl.  496;   State  v.  Dor- 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  393 

ganized  under  a  special  charter  to  adopt  and  be  governed 
by  any  section  or  part  of  the  general  law  was  held  valid.2 
An  act  which  in  effect  adopts  and  perpetuates  the  provision 
of  special  charters,  and  which  is  dependent  upon  them  for 
its  meaning  and  effect,  is  special  and  void.3  In  one  of  the 
cases  cited  an  act,  applicable  to  cities  of  over  100,000  and 
not  exceeding  165,000  population,  authorized  the  common 
council  to  fix  the  salaries  of  all  city  officers  and  employees, 
but  provided  that  it  should  not  fix  a  greater  sum  than  was 
then  paid  for  such  purposes.  The  only  city  embraced  by 
the  act  was  under  a  special  charter  and  the  cities  that  might 
come  into  the  class  were  also  under  special  charters.  The 
act  was  held  special  because  the  maximum  could  only  be 
ascertained  by  reference  to  the  charter,  and,  if  other  cities 
came  into  the  class,  each  might  have  a  different  maximum.4 
An  act  which  permitted  municipalities  organized  under 
special  charters  to  adopt  the  general  law  and  retain  certain 
provisions  of  their  charters  relating  to  liquor  licenses  was 
held  void  as  an  attempt  to  create  a  class  of  municipalities 
not  founded  on  any  valid  distinctions.5 

§  213.  Other  classification  of  municipalities  or  for  mu- 
nicipal purposes. —  Cities  abutting  on  the  ocean  may  con- 
stitute a  class  for  certain  purposes.6    An  act  legalizing  the 

2  Adams  v.  Beloit,  105  Wis.  363,  special  laws.  A  general  law  can- 
81  N.  W.  869.  47  L.  R  A.  441.  not  be  based  on  special  laws,  even 

3  Alexander  v.  Duluth,  57  Minn,  though  its  operation  is  general 
47,  58  N.  W.  866;  Bowe  v.  St.  Paul,  when  passed,  if  the  legislature  by 
70  Minn.  341,  73  N.  W.  184;  State  v.  the  future  repeal  of  any  or  all  of 
Johnson.  77  Minn.  453,  80  N.  W.  the  special  laws  may  render  the 
(520.  Compare  State  v.  Minor,  79  so-called  general  law  special  in  its 
Minn.  201,  81  N.  W.  912.  operation  and  effect.     The  act  can- 

4  Bowe  v.  St.  Paul,  70  Minn.  341,  not  be  constitutional  to-day  and 
73  N.  W.  184.  The  court  says:  "It  unconstitutional  to-morrow.  If  it 
must  appear  that  the  act  will  al-  may  in  the  future  become  unoon- 
ways,  by  the  force  of  its  own  terms,  stitutional  it  is  so  when  passed." 
continue  to  be  a  general  law.  5  People  v.  Normal,  170  111.  468,  48 
Again,  this  act  might  become  spe-  N.  E.  901. 

cial  in  its  operation  and  effect  by        6  State  v.  Wright,  54  N.  J.  L.  130 
the  future  repeal  of  some  of  these    23  Atl.  116. 


(,i  m  R  \i.    AM>    SPECIAL    LAWS. 

incorporation  of  towns  or  cities  which  have  attempted  to 
organize  under  an  invalid  law  is  valid.  Such  communities 
constitute  B  class  Un-  BUch  purposes.1  An  act  dividing  town- 
ships into  two  olasses  according  to  density  of  population, 
having  three  hundred  or  more  to  the  square  mile  form- 
ing one  elass  and  all  others  a  second  class,  was  held  valid. s 
Townships  containing  unincorporated  villages  of  a  certain 
population  were  held  to  constitute  a  distinct  class  for  re- 
ceiving additional  powers.9  An  act  provided  that,  in  town- 
ships which  contained  a  city  of  eight  hundred  or  more  p  >p- 
ulation,  the  part  outside  the  city  might  organize  as  a  school 
district.  The  act  was  held  special  hecause  it  excluded  town- 
ships containing  an  incorporated  town  or  village  having 
the  same  population.10  An  act  that  in  cities  where  the  of- 
fice of  treasurer  was  for  an  indefinite  term  the  council 
should  have  power  to  fix  a  definite  term,  not  exceeding  five 
years,  was  held  special  and  void.11  An  act  in  regard  to  local 
improvements  was  held  special  and  void  because  it  applied 
only  to  municipalities  governed  by  commissioners.12  Bor- 
oughs may  not  be  classified  according  to  the  manner  in 
which  licenses  are  granted  therein.13  An  act  fixing  the 
term  of  otlice  of  city  physician  at  three  years  in  all  cities 

'State  v.  Thief  River  Falls,   76  See   Denver    v.   Spokane    Falls,   7 

Minn.   15,  78    N.   W.  867;    Winne-  Wash.  226,  34  Pac.  926. 

conne  v.  Winneconne,  111  Wis.  13,  8  Common  wealth  v.  Blackley,  19& 

B6  N.  W.  690;  Pullman  v.  Hungate,  Pa.  St.  372,  -17  Atl.  1104;  Pniladel- 

8  Wash.  519,  30  Pac.  483.     In  the  pliia  &  R.  Coal  &  I.  Co. 's  Petition, 

latter  case  the  court  says:  "The  200  Pa.  St.  352,  49  Atl.  797. 

fact  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  cer-  9Land,  Log  &   Lumber  Co.   v. 

tain  lo  ality.  by  their  own  action,  Brown,  7:;  Wis.  201,  40  N.  W.  482. 

have  assume  1  to  act  in  a  particular  10  Plummer  v.  Borsheim,  8  N.  D. 

_•  .  jhed   from  that  565,  80  N.  W.  G90. 

of  the  people  at  large,  so  separates  n  Ulfert  v.  Vogt,  65  N.  J.  L.  377, 

them  as  a  class  from  the  rest  of  the  47  Atl.  225;  S.  C.  affirmed,  65  N.  J. 

of  the  state  that  the  legis-  L  621,  48  Atl.  574 

lature  may  properly  deal  therewith  1-  .State  v.  Long  Branch  Com'rs, 

in  a  different  manner  than  with  59  N.  J.  L.  146,  36  Atl.  482 

the  rest  of  the  people  without  its  13  State  v.  Hoover,  58  N.  J.  L.  334, 

a    being   special   legislation."  33  Atl.  217. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  395 

in  which  it  was  not  previously  fixed  by  law,  and  which 
thus  excluded  five  cities  from  its  operation,  was  held  spe- 
cial and  void.14  An  act  approved  and  in  effect  April  13, 
1889,  provided  that  any  city  which  contained  more  than 
two  assembly  districts  wholly  within  the  city  should  be  re- 
divided  into  wards  to  correspond  with  the  assembly  dis- 
tricts. An  act  approved  March  27  and  in  effect  July  4  of 
the  same  year  so  arranged  the  assembly  districts  that  this 
condition  would  exist  onl)7  in  Newark.  It  was  held  that 
the  effect  of  the  two  was  to  make  the  former  act  special 
and  void.15 

Townships  situated  in  counties  of  the  first  class  do  not 
constitute  a  class  for  legislation.16  So  of  cities  situated  in 
counties  of  60,000  population  or  more.17  An  Illinois  reve- 
nue act  provided  that  in  counties  having  a  population  in 
excess  of  125,000,  of  which  there  was  only  one,  the  aggre- 
gate rate  of  taxation  should  not  exceed  five  per  cent.,  and 
that  the  county,  school  and  municipal  tax  rates  should  be 
scaled  pro  rata,  if  necessary,  to  bring  the  aggregate  within 
that  limit.  The  provision  was  held  void  as  special  legisla- 
tion, because  it  made  a  class  of  cities,  towns  and  school 
districts  situated  in  that  county  without  any  reasonable 
foundation  therefor.  "By  this  act,"  says  the  court,  "re- 
strictions are  put  upon  cities,  townships,  school  districts 
and  other  municipal  corporations  simply  because  they  are 
within  Cook  county,  which  is  the  only  county  in  the  state 
with  a  population  of  more  than  125,000.  There  can  be  no 
reason,  in  the  nature  of  things,  why  a  city,  village  or  school 
district  or  other  public  corporation  in  that  county  should 
be  deprived  of  powers  that  a  similar  corporation  situated 
in  some  other  county  is  permitted  to  exercise.  It  is  an  ar- 
bitrary and   unnatural  classification  of  municipalities  not 

"Tetrault  v.  Orange,  55  N.  J.  L.        isCrookall  v.  Matthews,  61  N.  J. 

99,  25  Atl.  268.  L.  349,  39  AtL  659. 

w  State  v.  Newark,  53  N.  J.  L.  4,  .   17  Scowden's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St. 

20  Atl.  836,  10  L,  R.  A.  700.  422. 


.,i  m  EtAL    AM'   BP1  OIAL    LAWS. 

different  in  population,  needs  or  requirements,  and  exercis- 
ing the  same  general  powers  in  other  respects."18 

An  act  permitted  an  area  not  exceeding  two  square  miles 
and  having  taxable  property  of  at  least  $100,000  to  become 
incorporated  as  a  borough,  provided  that  during  any  portion 
of  the  year  a  population  of  not  less  than  200  resided  thereon. 
It  was  held  special  and  void  by  reason  of  the  condition 
in  the  proviso.19  An  act  which  permitted  the  organization 
of  a  township  from  part  of  an  incorporated  town,  while  a 
similar  area  with  the  same  population  not  so  situated  was 
not  given  the  privilege,  was  held  to  be  special  legislation 
and  void.20  An  act  providing  for  the  incorporation  of  any 
township,  or  part  of  a  township,  containing  not  more  than 
four  square  miles  and  not  more  than  5,000  inhabitants,  into 
a  borough,  was  held  to  be  a  general  law  and  valid.  While 
such  laws  usually  fix  a  minimum  of  population,  it  was  held 
valid  to  fix  a  maximum.21  An  act  in  regard  to  the  con- 
struction of  sidewalks  applied  to  villages  which  had  not 
constructed  walks  under  a  certain  act.  This  was  held  an 
illusory  classification."  Municipalities  organized  under  the 
general  law  may  be  legislated  for  as  a  class.23 

18  People  v.  Knopf,  183  111.  410,  the  provision  submitting  the  pro- 
56  n.  K.  155.  posed  organization  to  a  vote,  have 

19  Attorney-General  v.  Anglesea,  used  population  as  fixing  a  limit 
58  N.  J.  L.  372,  33  Atl.  971.  beyond    which    municipal  powers 

20  People  v.  Martin,  178  III  611,  53  of  the  limited  extent  provided  for 
_\.  ];  in  this  act  should  not  be  acquired. 

-'State   v.    Clayton,  53  N.  J.  L.  This  requires  the    inference  that 

..'TT,  21  Atl.  1026.     After  referring  the    legislature    determined    that 

to  the  principles  of  classification  such  a   borough  organization,  ap- 

by    population,    the    court    says:  propriate  and  sufficient  for  a  pop- 

"  But  the  act  has  been  made  to  ulation  not  exceeding    five   thou- 

operate  upon  a  population  within  sand,  would  not  be  appropriate  or 

a  fixed  number.  Hence  a  different  sufficient    for  a  greater  number, 

■n  arises,  but  to  be  settled  by  Can  we  pronounce  this  erroneous, 

an  application  of  the  same  princi-  or     such    classification     illusive? 

pie.     The  legislature,  probably  con-  I  think  not."    p.  2^2. 

ceivin-  that  the  imposition  of  the  2ZCostello  v.  Wyoming,  49  Ohio 

burden  <>f  Buch  a  corporation  on  a  St.  202.  30  N.  E.  613. 

mited     population     without  *3Flynn  v.  Little  Falls  Elec.  & 

necessity  was  guarded  against  by  "Water  Co.,  74  Minn.  180,  77  N.  W. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  397 

§  214.  Classification  based  on  existing  or  past  condi- 
tions only. —  A  classification  based  upon  existing  or  past 
conditions  or  facts,  and  which  would  exclude  the  persons, 
places,  things  or  objects  thereafter  coming  into  the  same 
situation  or  condition,  is  special  and  void.24  Thus  a  classifi- 
cation of  cities  or  counties  based  upon  existing  population 
or  upon  the  population  shown  by  specified  census  is  of  this 
character.25  An  act  applicable  to  all  counties  having  by  the 
last  census  a  population  of  150,000  or  upwards  was  held  not 
to  fix  the  last  census  before  the  passage  of  the  act  as  the 
criterion  for  all  time,  but  to  mean  the  last  census  from  time 
to  time.26  The  following  were  held  within  the  principle 
stated:  An  act  providing  for  the  changing  of  county  seats, 
with  a  proviso  that  it  should  not  apply  to  any  county 
"wherein  the  court-house  and  jail  now  erected  exceed  in 
value  the  sum  of  $35,000;  "27  an  act  granting  certain  privi- 
leges for  the  planting  and  raising  of  oysters  in  lands  under 
tidewaters  to  those  who  now  use  and  have  used  such  lands 
since  January  1,  1880 ;28  an  act  providing  for  licensing 
race  tracks,  but  providing  that  no  license  should  be  granted 
to  any  race  course  not  in  use  prior  to  a  given  date,  unless 

180;  Butler  v.  Montclair,  67  N.  J.  Trenton,  56  N.  J.  L.  469,  29  AtL  183: 

L.  426,  51  Atl.  494.  Lougher  v.  Soto,  129   Cal.  610,  62 

*  Thomas  v.  Austin,  103  Ga.  701,  Pac.  184;  Hetland  v.  County  Com- 

30  S.  E.  627;  Murnane  v.  St.  Louis,  missioners,  89  Minn.  492,  95  N.  W. 

123  Mo.  479,  27  S.  W.  711;  State  v.  305;  Commonwealth  v.  Patton,  88 

O'Connor,  54  N.  J.   L.  36,  22   Atl.  Pa.  St.  258;  Scowden's  Appeal,  96 

1 091 ;  State  v.  Trenton,  55  N.  J.  L.  72,  Pa.  St.  422. 

25  Atl.  113;  Burlington  v.  Pennsyl-  25  Campbell  v.  Indianapolis,  155 

vania  R.  R.  Co.,  56  N.  J.  Eq.  259,  38  Ind.  186,  57  N.  E.  920;  State  v.  Des 

Atl.  849;  Pennsylvania  R.  R  Co.  v.  Moines,  96  Iowa,  521,  65  N.  W.  818; 

Burlington,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  547,  43  Atl.  General  Trust  Co.  v.  Citizens'  St. 

700;  State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L.  83,  Ry.  Co.,  80  Fed.  218. 

30  Atl.  186;  Cincinnati  v.  Rosche  26  Verges   v.  Milwaukee  County, 

Bros.,  50  Ohio  St  103,  33  N.  E.  408,  116  Wis.  191,  93  N.  W.  44 

40  Am.  St.  Rep.  653;  Silberman  v.  27  Edmonds  v.  Herbrandson.  2  N. 

Hay,  59  Ohio  St  582,  53  N.  E.  258:  D.  270,  50  N.  W.  970, 14  L.  R.  A.  725. 

Johnson  v.  Milwaukee,  88  Wis.  383,  28  state  v.  Post,  55  N.  J.  L.  264,  26 

60  N.  W.  270;  State  v.  Trenton,  54  Atl.  683. 
N.  J.  L.  444,  24  Atl.  478;  State  v. 


G  i  \i  RAL    and   SPECIAL    LAV  3. 

the  board  of  chosen  Freeholders  of  the  county  should  declare 
il  was  a  publio  necessity.-'  An  act  in  regard  to  the 
,al  of  county  seats  required  a  three-fifths  vote  in  favor 
of  the  proposition,  l>ut  provided  that  where  the  county  scat 
ol  any  county  had  been  relocated  by  a  special  act  of  the 
are  a  given  time,  a  majority  vote  should  bo 
sufficient.  It  was  held  to  be  a  local  and  special  law.  The 
court  said:  "This  is  classification  run  mad."80  An  act  appli- 
cable to  all  counties  in  which  were  cast  at  the  general  elec- 
tion of  1882  more  than  1,150  votes  was  held  to  be  special 
and  void.81  But  in  another  case  an  act  which  excepted  from 
its  opi  ration  counties  in  which  the  vote  at  the  last  election 
for  president  was  less  than  3,000  was  held  not  to  be  local 
or  special.32  A  remedial  act  is  held  not  to  be  local  or  spe- 
cial because  applying  only  to  present  emergencies  and  not 
to  like  emergencies  in  the  future.33 

§  '215.  Validity  of  class  not  dependent  upon  number  — 
(lasses  of  one  or  a  few. — The  number  of  persons  affected 
by  a  law  does  not  control  or  determine  the  question  of  its 
validity;  it  is  enough  that  the  law  relates  to  a  subject  of  a 
general  nature,  and  is  general  and  uniform  in  its  operation 
upon  every  person  who  is  brought  within  the  relation  and 
circumstances  provided  for  by  it.34  A  class  of  cities  or 
counties,  based  upon  population,  may  be  valid,  though  it 
embraces  hut  one  city  or  county,  if  others  may  come  into 
the  class  on  attaining  the  specilied  population.35 

ate  v.  Elizabeth,  5G  N.  J.  L.  71,  mann  v.  Guttenberg,  63  N.  J.  L.  G16, 

.  51.  -11  Atl.  75S;  Alexander  v.  Duluth, 

30  Fitzgerald  v.  Phelps  &B.  Wind*  77   Minn.  445,  80  N.   W.  623.    See 

mill  I  ...,  12  W.  Va.  570,  26  S.  K.  315.  antt .  .'  201. 

See  Commonwealth  v.  Tat  ton,  88  *4McAnnich  v.  Miss.  &  M.  R.  R. 

Pa  St.  258,  lor  the  origin  of  this  Co.,  20  Iowa,  338;  Thomason  v.  Ash- 
worth,  73  Cat  73,  14  Pac.  615. 

ate  v.  Boyd,  19  Nev.  43,  5  Pac.  35  Indianapolis  v.  Navin,  151  Ind. 

139,  47  N.  E  525,  41  L.  R.  A.  337; 

lark  v.  Finley,  93  Tex.  171,  54  Campbell  v.  Indianapolis,  155  Ind. 

s.  \\  186,  57  N.  E.  920;  Smith  v.  Indian- 

te  v.  Guttenberg  02  N.  J.  L.  apolis  St.  Ry.  Co.,  158  Ind.  425,  63 

8.  C  affirmed.  Her-  N.  E.  849;  People  v.  Onahan,  170 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  39(J 

An  act  which  prohibited  the  deposit  of  material  in  the 
waters  of  New  York  harbor  was  held  to  be  a  general  and 
not  a  local  or  special  law.36  In  the  case  first  cited  the  court 
says:  "  The  fact  that  an  act  operates  only  upon  a  limited 
area  or  upon  persons  within  a  specified  locality  and  not 
generally  throughout  the  state  is,  in  most  cases,  a  reason- 
ably accurate  test  by  which  to  determine  whether  the  act  is 
general  or  local.  But  it  is  not  decisive  in  all  cases.  The  entire 
state  may  be  interested  in  the  enactment  and  execution  of 
a  law  operating  territorially  upon  a  particular  section  of 
the  state  only."  "  The  citizens  of  New  York  city  may  pos- 
sibly have  a  greater  stake  in  the  matter  than  citizens  in 
other  localities,  but  the  destruction  or  serious  impairment 
of  the  harbor  of  New  York  would  directly  affect  the  pros- 
perity of  the  state.  It  would  impair  its  revenues,  imperil 
its  system  of  river,  canal,  and  railroad  transportation,  and 
it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  every  industrial  interest, 
agricultural  or  mechanical,  would  feel  its  blighting  influ- 
ence." 

On  the  same  reasoning  an  act  providing  for  the  sale  and 
lease  of  school  lands  in  a  particular  part  of  the  state  was 
held  not  to  be  a  local  law.37  So  of  an  act  regulating  the 
taking,  planting  and  cultivating  of  oysters  in  particular  tide 
waters  but  not  in  all,38    A  statute  of  New  Jersey  gave  the 

111.  449,  48  N.  E.  1003;  Winston  v.  persons  liable  to  its  penalties  wher- 
Stone,  102  Ky.  423,  43  S.  W.  397;  ever  they  reside,  it  is  to  be  consid- 
State  v.  Wilson,  19  Ky.  L.  R.  126,  ered  a  general,  as  contradistin- 
39  S.  W.  49;  State  v.  Frank,  60  guished  from  a  local,  act."  p.  209. 
Neb.  327.  83  N.  W.  74;  People  v.  So  of  an  act  relating  to  the  port  of 
Squire,  14  Daly,  154.  New  Orleans,  Duffy  v.  New  Or- 
se  Ferguson  v.  Ross,  126  N.  Y.  459,  leans,  49  La.  Ann.  114,  21  So.  179. 
27  N.  E.  954;  Ferguson  v.  Sandford,  Says  the  court:  "The  fertile  valey 
09  Hun,  207,  13  N.  Y.  S.  398.  In  the  is  interested;  the  traffic  and  corn- 
latter  case  the  court  says:  "  We  merce  on  seas  and  oceans  are  con- 
think  that,  inasmuch  as  the  act  in  cerned." 

question  operates  upon  a  subject  in  3"  Reed  v.  Rogan,  94  Tex.  177,  59 

which  the  whole  people  are  inter-  S.  W.  255. 

ested,  and  prescribes  a  rule  of  con-  38  state  v.  Carson,  67  N.  J.  L.  178, 

duct  for  all  persons  and  renders  all  50  Atl.  780.     The  court  says  of  the 


Q]  m  i;  \i.    am>   BP]  OIAL    law.;. 


Btate  com missionor  of  public  roads  a  fixed  salary  instead  of 
•  diem)  and  limited  the  expense  connected  with  his 
It  was  held  to  be  a  genera]  law  because  there  was 
no  other  office  with  like  characteristics  and  it  formed  a  class 
by  itself.  "The  case  turns,  therefore,"  sa}Ts  the  court, 
"upon  the  classifiability,  for  the  purposes  of  legislation,  of 
the  object  of  the  present  law.  This  is  a  question  of  fact. 
The  law  is  entirely  clear  that  if  an  object  be  susceptiblo  of 
classification  it  cannot  be  legislated  for  separately.  Correl- 
atively,  it  is  equally  clear  that  an  object  that  is  not  suscep- 
tible of  classification  is  not,  on  that  account,  placed  beyond 
the  pale  of  legislative  control."39  An  Illinois  act  author- 
ized any  board  of  park  commissioners,  upon  certain  condi- 
tions, to  take  control  of  any  city  street  for  the  purpose  of 
connecting  any  park  under  its  control  with  any  part  of  any 
city,  town  or  village.  There  was  but  a  single  city  having 
parks  under  the  control  of  park  commissioners,  and  conse- 
quently only  one  city  where  it  could  operate.  It  was  held 
not  local  or  special.40  Additional  cases  of  the  same  purport 
are  referred  to  in  the  margin.41 

An  act  which  designates  a  particular  city  or  county  by 
name,  or  by  a  description  so  qualified  that  a  particular  city  or 
county  is  plainly  intended,  and  that  no  other  can  reasonably 
be  expected  to  have  the  distinguishing  characteristics,  and 
whose  operation  is  limited  to  such  city  or  county,  is  held  to 
be  local  or  special.42 

act:  "Although  it  deals  with  the  a  single  city  had   such  park?,  an 

lands  of  the  state  under  tide  water  act  general  in  its  application  to  all 

only  in  certain   localities,  the  mat-  cities  would  he  locator  special  leg- 

hich  it  regulates  are  of  gen-  islation,   no    valid    act   could    be 


eral.  not  local,  concern.  The  lands 
themselves  belong  to  the  people  of 
the  state,  not  to  the  citizens  of  tlie 
counties  where  they  are  located." 
p.  189. 

»  Budd  v.  Hancock,  60  N.  J.  L. 
138,  48  Atl.  1023. 

4U  West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  v. 
McMu  len,184  III.  170,  25  X.  EL  <;;<•>. 
10  L.  B.  A.  215.     "If  because  only 


passed     affecting     such    existing 
parks."    p.  176. 

41  Trausch  v.  Cook  County,  147 
111.  534,  35  N  E.  477;  State  v.  St  rat- 
ton.  186  Mo.423.  ::8  S.  W.  83;  Trea- 
nor  v.  Eichhora,  74  Hun,  58,  26  N. 
Y.  S.  314;  Condon  v.  Maloney,  108 
Tenn.  82,  65  S.  W.  871. 

42  People  v.  Common  Council,  85 
Cal.  360,  24  Pac.   727;  Burnham  v. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  401 

A  unique  condition  of  things,  existing  in  a  single  city  and 
arising  out  of  prior  valid  special  laws,  enacted  when  the 
constitution  did  not  forbid  such  legislation,  and  which  can- 
not arise  again  under  existing  constitutional  provisions, 
may  make  a  case  constituting  a  class  by  itself  and  be  dealt 
with  by  appropriate  legislation  applicable  expressly  to  such 
condition.43 

§  216  (120).  Evasive  classification  —  Examples. —  In  re- 
spect to  the  enumerated  subjects  as  to  which  legislation  is 
required  to  be  general,  and  special  acts  prohibited,  though 
such  subjects  may  be  divided  into  classes  distinguished  by 
substantial  differences  for  the  purpose  of  legislation  appro- 
priate to  such  conditions  as  spring  from  these  differences, 
there  must  nevertheless  be  a  limit  to  such  division,  even 
founded  on  substantial  differences.  "Within  certain  limits 
subjects  may  be  grouped  on  the  basis  of  such  differences  for 
general  legislation;  beyond  those  limits  such  differences 
would  not  be  the  basis  of  classification,  but  the  ground  of 
segregation  by  which  each  individual  would  be  distinguished 
for  special  enactments.44     The  prohibition  is  in  the  way  of 

Milwaukee,  98  Wis.  128.  73  N.  W.  Commonwealth,  91    Pa.    St.    125; 

1018;  State  v.  Smith,  48  Ohio  St.  Davis  v.   Clark,    106  Pa.   St.   377; 

211,  31  N.  E.  743;  Mottv.  Hubbard,  Westerfield,  Ex  parte,  55  Cal.  550; 

59  Ohio  St.  199,  53  N.  E.  47;  Piatt  Koser,  Ex  parte,  60  id.   177,   191; 

v.  Craig,  66  Ohio  St.  75,  63  N.  E.  Commonwealth   v.  Patten,  88  Pa. 

594:  State  v.  Cowles,  64  Ohio  St.  St.  258;  State  v.  Herrmann,  75  Mo. 

162,  59  N.  E.  895;  Blankenburg  v.  340;  Rutherford  v.  Heddens,  82  id. 

Block,  200  Pa.  St.  629,  50  Atl.  198.  388;  Mason  v.  Spencer,  35  Kan.  512; 

43  State  v.  Cool ey,  56  Minn.  540,  State    v.    Squires,    26    Iowa,    340; 

58  N.  W.    150.     The  facts  of  this  Stange  v.  Dubuque,  62  Iowa,  303, 

case  are    stated    ante,  §  196.      A  17  N.    W.    518;    State   ex    rel.    v. 

parallel  case  existed  in  Philadel-  Mitchell,  31  Ohio  St.  592;  Frye  v. 

phia  and  was  decided  differently,  Partridge,  82    III.   267;    Pritz,   Ex 

but    the    decision    was    also    put  parte,  9  Iowa,  30;  Davis  v.  Wool- 

upon    other  grounds.     Perkins  v.  nough,  id.  104;  State  v.  Graham,  16 

Philadelphia,  156  Pa.  St.  539,  27  Atl.  Neb.  74;  Phillips  v.  Schumacher.  10 

356;  Perkins  v.    Philadelphia,   156  Hun,   405;    Healey  v.    Dudley,    5 

Pa.  St.  554,  27  Atl.  356.  Lans.   115;    Hodges    v.   Baltimore 

^Devine   v.   Foard  of  Commis-  Pass.  Ry.  Co.,  58  Md.  603;  Central 

6ioi  crs.  81:  111.  590;  Montgomery  v.  Iowa  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Super- 
26 


;;  \i.     AM>    BP1  01  M.     LAWS. 

tttion  for  individual  eases.4*    It  is  equally  fatal  to  such 

latioD  though  it  be  general  in  form.  If  a  statute  is 
plainly  intended  for  a  particular  case,  and  looks  to  no 
broader  application  in  the  future,  it  is  special  or  local,  and, 
if  such  laws  are  prohibited  on  the  subject  to  which  it  re- 

.  :s  unconstitutional.48    The  lineaments  by  which  such 

arc  to  lie  distinguished  are  usually  so  special  that  a 

law  confined  thereto  would  be  anticipated  to  have  no  effect 

from  the  antecedent  improbability  of  such  a  case  arising. 

When,  therefore,  it  is  found  to  fit  such  a  special  case,  it  is 

icd  to  have  been  enacted  solely  for  it.47 
An  ad  came  in  question  which  gave  the  right  to  file  a 
mechanic's  lien  in  certain  cases,  but  contained  a  proviso  ex- 
cluding from  its  operation  counties  having  a  population  of 
over  two  hundred  thousand  inhabitants.  It  was  held  void 
as  a  local  and  special  law,  and  therefore  within  the  consti- 
tutional inhibition  of  such  laws  "authorizing  the  creation, 
extension  or  impairing  of  liens." 4S  The  classification  of 
counties  by  population  and  the  passage  of  laws  applicable 
to  a  certain  class  only  have  within  reasonable  limits  and  for 
some  purposes  been  admitted  upon  the  assumption,  that 
counties  having  a  small  population  may  ultimately  have  one 

visors,  G7  Iowa,  199.  25  N.  W.  128,  Hammer  v.  State.  44  N.  J.  L.  667; 

B2    Am.   &   Eng.   R.   R.    Cas.   223;  Devine  v.  Board  of  Commissioners, 

Kimball  v.  Rosendale.  42  Wis.  407,  84  111.  590;  Davis  v.  Clark,  106  Pa. 

:\  Am.  lap.  421;  Kerrigan  v.  Force,  St.  877;  Commonwealth  v.  Patten, 

68  N.  Y.  381.  See  Desmond  v.  Dunn,  88  Pa.  St.  258;  Frye  v.  Partridge,  82 

55  Cat  242;  Earle  v.  Board  of  Edu-  III.  207;  Hallock  v.  Hollingshead, 

nation,  id.  489,  49  N.  J.  L.  64;  Hudson  Co.  Free- 

evil  v.  Clifford, 63  Wis.  435, 24  holders  v.  Buck,  id.  228.  7  Atl.  860; 

N.  W.  65;  Williams  v.  Bidleman,  7  State  v.   Boyd,   19  Nev.   43,  5  Pac. 

68;  Montgomery  v.  Common-  735:  Adams  v.  Smith,  6  Dak.  94,  50 

,91  Pa.  St  125;  Frye  v.  Part-  N.   W.  720:  Topeka  v.   Gillett,  32 

:  111.  L'G7.  Kan.    431,  '4    Pac.    800;   State    v. 

ite  ex    rel.    v.  Mitchell,    31  Downs,  60  Kan.  788,  57  Pac.  962; 

Ohio  St.  592;  State  v.  Herrmann,  75  Sutton  v.  State,  96  Tenn.  696,  36  S. 

McCarthy    v.    Common-  W.  697,  33  L,  R,  A.  589. 

wealth,  110  Pa.  St.  243,  2  Atl.  423,  « Id. 

14   Am.   &    Eng.   Corp.    Cas.    271;  <8  Davis  v.  Clark,  106  Pa.  St  377. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  403 

much  larger.49  In  the  case  under  consideration,  however, 
two  counties  had,  at  the  time  the  law  in  question  was  passed, 
a  greater  population  than  two  hundred  thousand.  As  it 
could  not  be  assumed  that  their  population  would  ever  fall 
below  that  limit  they  were  permanently  excluded  from  the 
operation  of  the  act.  The  court  say:  "It  was  not  then  a 
general  act.  It  did  appty  to  a  great  number  of  counties; 
but  there  is  no  dividing  line  between  a  local  and  a  general 
statute.  It  must  be  either  one  or  the  other.  If  it  apply 
to  the  whole  state,  it  is  general.  If  to  a  part,  it  is  local. 
As  a  legal  principle  it  is  as  effectually  local  when  it  applies 
to  sixty-five  counties  out  of  sixty-seven  as  if  it  applied  to 
one  county  only.  The  exclusion  of  a  single  county  from  the 
operation  of  the  act  makes  it  local."50  Where  an  act  pro- 
vided exceptionally  for  the  holding  of  courts  in  all  counties 
of  more  than  sixty  thousand  inhabitants,  adding  restrictively, 
"in  which  there  shall  be  any  city  incorporated,  at  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  this  act,  with  a  population  exceeding  three 
thousand  inhabitants,  situate  at  a  distance  from  the  county 
seat  of  more  than  twenty-seven  miles  by  the  usually  traveled 
road,"  the  court  held  the  act  local;  that  it  applied  and  was 
intended  to  apply  to  only  one  county.51  A  law  to  authorize 
the  taking  of  public  burial  places  for  school  purposes,  which 
was  so  hedged  about  and  qualified  by  conditions  as  to  evi- 
dently be  intended  to  fit  one  particular  place  and  which 
could  in  any  event  apply  to  but  few,  was  held  special  and 
void.52  An  act  of  Wisconsin  to  authorize  the  building  of 
viaducts  across  gullies,  running  streams  or  railroad  tracks 
by  the  counties  of  the  state,  and  the  issuing  of  countv  bonds 
therefor,  conferred  the  authority  upon  all  counties,  but  pro- 

49 Post,  §217.  51  Commonwealth   v.  Patten,  88 

s«  Montgomery     v.     Common-  Pa.  St.  258;  State  v.  Herrmann,  75 

wealth,  91  Pa.  St.   125;  Devine  v.  Mo.  340;  Weinman  v.  Wilkinsburg, 

Board   of    Commissioners.   84    111.  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  118  Pa.  St.  192,  12  AtL 

590;  McCarthy  v.  Commonwealth,  288. 

110  Pa.  St.  24;;   Matt  r  of  Henne-  ™  York  School  District's  Appeal, 

berger,  155  N.  Y.  420,  50  N.  E.  61,  42  169  Pa.  St.  70,  32  Atl.  92. 
L.  R.  A.  132. 


1     ! 


i.l  M  UAL    AND    BP]  I  1  \  l .    LAWS. 


vided  that  the  viaduct  Bhould  not  be  less  than  one  thousand 
feet  I  tj   feet  wide  and  eighteen  feet  high,  and  should 

cost  not  less  than  $80,000,  and  the  bonds  should  not  exceed 
one-fifth  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  taxable  property  of  the 
county.  By  reason  of  these  limitations  the  act  could  only 
apply  in  Milwaukee  county  and  was  held  void.-'3  So  of  an 
act  authorizing  counties,  which  had  entered  into  a  contract 
for  building  a  oourt-house,  incurred  obligations  thereunder 
prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  and  had  expended  at  least 
$7,000  thereunder,  to  issue  bonds  to  an  amount  not  exceed- 
ing $35,000,  to  meet  such  obligations.94 

17.  Classification  of  counties  and  legislation  in  re- 
spect thereto. —  Counties  may  be  classified  according  to 
population  on  the  same  principles  as  apply  to  municipalities 
for  the  purpose  of  legislation  having  a  necessary  relation  to 
population.86  The  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania,  alter 
to  the  principles  applicable  to  the  classification  of 
cities,  says:  "The  same  principle  must  make  classification 
constitutional  as  to  the  other  political  and  municipal  divis- 


53  Warner  v  Milwaukee  County, 
112  Wis.  601,  88  N.  W.  577. 

MHetland    v.    County    Commis- 
sioners. 80  Minn.  492.  95  N.  W.  305. 
55 People  v.  Onahan,  170  III.  440, 
'.'.   E.   1003;   Burton   Stock  Car 
187  111.  10.58  N.  E. 
418;  Koester  v.  Board  of  Com'rs.  44 
Kan.  141,  24  Pac.  G5;  Stone  v.  Wil- 
son, 19  Ky.  L.  R.  120,  30  S.  W.    19; 
■  v.   Sullivan,  72  Minn.   126,  75 
N.  W.8;  Murray  v.  Board  of  County 
is.  81  Minn.  359,  84  N.  W.  103, 
m.  St.  Rep.  879,51  L.  R.  A.  828; 
State  v.  West  fall,  85  Minn.   1 
N.    W.   17.".,   89  Am  St.   Rep   571j 
Dunne  v.  Kansas  City  Cable  Ky. 
Co..  II  1  Ma  1.  32 &  W.  841;  Coombs 
mission  Co.  v.  Block.  180  Mo. 
&   W.    1189;    Slier  woo.  I    v. 
1  Ave.  Ky  Co.,  132  Mo.  339,  33 


S.  W.  771:  State  v.  Slover,  134  Mo. 
607,  36  S.  W.  50;  State  v.  Frank, 
GO  Neb.  327.  83  N.  W.  74;  State  v. 
Frank,  61  Neb.  679,  85  N.  W.  956; 
Mort  land  v.  State,  52  N.  J.  L.  521, 
20  Atl.  673;  State  v.  Taylor,  68  N. 
J.  L.  276,  53  Atl.  302;  Peop  e  v. 
Dunn,  157  N.  Y.  528,  52  N.  E.  572, 
,43  L.  R.  A.  247;  Lloyd  v.  Smith, 
176  Pa.  St.  213,35  Atl.  190;  Com- 
monwealth  v.  Anderson.  17s  Pa.  St. 
171,  35  Atl.  632;  Common  weal  tli  v. 
McCarthy,  18  Phila.  616;  Morr  on 
v.  Bachert.  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  158;  State 
v.  Berkeley,  64  S.  C.  194,41  S.  E. 
961;  .Minnehaha  County  v.  Thome, 
6  S.  I ).  1 19,  61  N.  W.  688;  Peterson 
v.  State,  lOlTenn.  1 27,  56  S.  W.  834 ; 
Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  Tenn.  82, 
65  &  W.  871. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  4:05 

ions  of  the  state  when  considered  in  their  govern  mental 
capacit}7.  Classification  of  counties  is  therefore  as  permis- 
sible as  classification  of  cities,  and  the  legislature  may  de- 
termine what  differences  in  situation,  circumstances  and 
needs  call  for  a  difference  of  class,  subject  to  the  super- 
vision of  the  courts  as  the  final  interpreters  of  the  constitu- 
tion to  see  that  it  is  actual  classification,  and  not  special 
legislation  under  that  guise."56 

If  the  classification  is  founded  on  correct  principles,  it  is 
no  objection  that  a  class  may  contain  but  one  county  at  the 
time  the  act  is  passed.57  An  act  relating  to  the  fees  of 
county  officers  applied  to  counties  of  over  100,000  popula- 
tion and  not  more  than  185,000,  of  which  there  was  only 
one.  The  act  was  assailed  on  the  ground  particularly  that 
it  did  not  include  all  counties  over  100,000.  But  the  court 
held  it  could  not  say  that  there  was  no  ground  for  a  dis- 
tinction and  sustained  the  act.58  An  act  regulating  fees  of 
county  officers   except   in  counties  containing  more   than 

5B  Lloyd  v.  Smith,  176  Pa.  St.  213,  eluded  from   the  class,  or  which 

218,  35  Atl.  199.  suggests  the  necessity  or  propriety 

57  People  v.  Onahan,  170  Til.  449,  of  different  legislation  with  respect 
48  N.  E.  1003;  Stone  v.  Wilson,  19  to  them.  The  subject  of  classifica- 
Ky.  L.  R.  126,  39  S.  W.  49;  State  v.  tion  by  population  is  so  largely  a 
Sullivan,  72  Minn.  126,  75  N.  W.  8;  matter  of  policy,  and  the  consider- 
State  v.  Berkeley,  64  S.  C.  194,  41  ations  which  enter  into  it  are  so 
S.  E.  961;  Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  numerous  and  complex,  that  the 
Tenn.  82,  05  N.  W.  871.  legislature  must  necessarily  be  al- 

58  State  v.  Sullivan,  72  Minn.  126,  lowed  a  large  discretion  in  the 
75  N.  W.  8.  The  court  says:  "The  matter;  and  the  courts  ought  not 
on!y  thing  that  could  cast  any  to  hold  a  statute  invalid  or  special 
possible  doubt  on  the  propriety  legislation  unless  it  appears,  very 
of  the  basis  adopted  in  this  clearly,  that  the  basis  of  classifiea- 
act  is  the  fact  that  it  excludes  tion  adopted  is  purely  arbitrary, 
from  the  class  counties  having  We  cannot  say  that  there  may  not 
more  than  185,000  inhabitants.  It  be  some  natural  reason,  founded  on 
is  urged  that  this  is  an  arbitrary  a  difference  in  situation  and  cir- 
classification,  not  founded  upon  cumstances,  why  counties  having 
any  apparent  natural  reason  sug-  over  185,000  inhabitants  should  be 
gested  by  a  difference  between  the  excluded  from  the  clas?,  as  well  as 
situation  and  circumstances  of  the  those  having  less  than  100,000,  or 
counties  included  and   those   ex-  why  counties  having  a  population 


GENERAL    ANI>    BP]  01  \I.    LAWS. 


m>  inhabitants  or  less  than  10,000  was  held  to  bo  not 
Bcation  but  a  mere  exolusioD  of  certain  counties  and 
An  ;u-t  applicable  to  counties  having  a  population 
of  from  35,190  to  35,200  was  held  evasive  and  special.60 

Classification  by  papulation  has  been  held  proper  for  the 
purpose  of  regulating  the  fees  and  compensation  of  county 
officers,81  for  regulating  the  manner  of  selecting  jurors,62  for 
preventing  stock  from  running  at  large,63  for  regulating  the 
manner  of  assessing  property  for  taxation,64  providing  for 
laving  out  and  regulating  the  public  roads,6*  and  for  the 
administration  of  county  affairs.66  An  act  providing  for 
theTorrens  system  of  registering  land  titles,  applicable  only 
to  counties  having  over  75,000  inhabitants, was  held  valid.67 

between    those  limits   should  not    E.  9G1.     In  the  last  case  the  act  was 
have  different  Legislation  inrespect    applicable  to  counties  having  a  city 


Lries  of  county  officer  ." 
» Morrison  v.  Backert,  112  Pa.  St. 

iixon   v.   Burson.  54  Ohio  St. 
470.  43  N.  E.  1000.     To  same  effect, 
Owen  County  Com'rs  v.  Spangler, 
159  In  1.  575,  65  N.  E.  743. 
61  Stone  v.  Wilson,  19  Ky.  L.  R. 
.  W.  49;  State  v.  Sullivan. 
72  Minn.  126,   75  N.  W.  8;   State  v. 
Frank,  60  Neb.  327,  83  N.  W.  74; 
State  v.  Frank,  61  Neb.  679.  85  N. 
W.  956;   Eudson  County  v.  Clarke, 
65  N.  J.  L  271,  47  Atl.  478;   Com- 
mon wealth  v.  .McCarthy,  18  Phila. 
Morrison  v.  Bachert,  1  Pa.  Co. 
i  't.    153;     Minnehaha    County    v. 
Thorne,  6  S.  D.  4  19,  61  N.  W.  688. 
-  I'eople  v.  Onahan,  170  111.  449, 
J].  1003;  Dunne  v.  Kansas  City 
Cable  Ry.  Co.,  131  Ma  1,  32  S.  W. 
Coombs    Commission    Co.    v. 
180  Ma  668,  82  8.  W.  1139; 
-..  I  h    ad   Ave.  Ry.  Co., 
[a  889,  38  S.  W.  771;  State  v. 
r.    184  Ma  607,  36  S.  W.  50; 
State  v.  Berkeley,  64  S.  C.  194,  41  & 


of  40.000  inhabitants. 

63  Peterson  v.  State,  104  Tenn.  127, 
56  S.  W.  834. 

64  Burton  Stock  Car  Co.  v.  Trae- 
ger,  187  III.  10.  58  N.  E.  418. 

65  Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  Tenn. 
82,  65  S.  W.  871. 

WMortland  v.  State,  52  N.  J.  L. 
521,  20  Atl.  073;  Lloyd  v.  Smith,  176 
Pa.  St.  218,  35  Atl.  199. 

»'  State  v.  Westfall,  85  Minn.  437, 
89  N.  W.  175,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  571. 
The  court  says:  "We  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  facts  that  the  larg- 
est cities  of  the  state  are  within  the 
limits  of  the  classified  counties, 
that  the  platted  portions  thereof 
embrace  a  greater  number  of  sub- 
divisions and  parcels  of  land  than 
the  less  densely  populated  portions 
of  the  state,  that  the  individual 
owners  of  the  land  are  more  nu- 
merous, the  value  thereof  much 
greater,  and  that  the  records  of  the 
evidence  of  the  titles  thereto  rap- 
idly increase  in  volume  and  be- 
come more  complex   with  the  in- 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


407 


An  act  to  provide  for  the  treatment  of  indigent  inebriates 
at  the  public  expense  in  counties  of  50,000  population  or 
more  was  held  special  and  void.68  Counties  may  be  classi- 
fied according  to  assessed  valuation  for  the  purpose  of  regu- 
lating the  fees  of  county  officers.69 

An  act  on  a  subject  of  a  general  nature  which  applies  to 
one  county  only,  or  which  excludes  one  or  more  counties 
from  its  operation,  is  local  and  special  and  void.70  The  fees 
and  compensation  of  county  officers  is  held  to  be  a  subject 
of  a  general  nature,71  and  so  is  the  erection  of  county  build- 
ings.72    It  is  held  that  an  act  is  not  rendered  special  or 


crease  of  population,  whereby  the 
risks  of  defective  titles,  and  ex- 
penses for  abstracts  thereof,  and 
the  delays  and  difficulties  in  trans- 
ferring real  estate,  are  proportion- 
ately increased,  were  proper  for 
the  consideration  of  the  legislature 
in  determining  whether  there  was 
a  practical  necessity  or  propriety 
for  the  classification  in  question 
and  justify  it."    p.  440. 

68  Murray  v.  County  Com'rs,  81 
Minn.  359,  84  N.  W.  103,  83  Am.  St. 
Rep.  379.  51  L.  R.  A.  828. 

«>Harwood  v.  Wentworth,  162  U, 
&  547,  16  S.  C.  Rep.  890,  40  L.  Ed. 
1069.  Such  classification  is  ex- 
pressly authorized  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  Wyoming.  Guthrie  v.  Con- 
verse County,  7  Wyo.  95, 50  Pac.  229. 
In  this  case  it  was  held  that  when 
a  county  changed  its  class  during 
an  official's  incumbency  his  salary 
did  not  change. 

70  Henderson  v.  Koenig,  168  Mo. 
356,  68  S.  W.  72 ;  Singleton  v.  Eureka 
County,  22  Nev.  91,  35  Pac.  833; 
State  v.  Bergen  County,  52  N.  J.  L. 
302,  19  Atl.  718;  Matter  of  Henne- 
berger,  155  N.  Y.  420,  50  N.  E.  61,  42 
L.  R.  A.  132;  Mott  v.  Hubbard,  59 


Ohio  St.  199,  53  N.  E.  47;  State  v. 
Brown,  60  Ohio  St.  462,  54  N.  E.  525; 
Commonwealth  v.  Carey,  2  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  293;  Nance  v.  Anderson  County, 
60  S.  C.  501,  39  S.  E.  5;  Sutton  v. 
State,  96  Tenn.  696,  36  S.  W.  697,  33 
L.  R.  A.  589;  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Forest  County,  95  Wis.  80,  70 
N.  W.77;  Adams  v. Smith,  6  Dak.  94, 
50  N.  W.  720;  State  v.  Otis,  68  N.  J.  L. 
64, 52  Atl.  305 ;  State  v.  Ellet,  47  Ohio 
St.  90,  23  N.  E.  931,  21  Am.  St.  Rep. 
772;  Commissioners  v.  Rosch  Bros., 
50  Ohio  St.  103,  33  N.  E.  408,  40  Am. 
St.  Rep.  653;  Silberman  v.  Hay,  59 
Ohio  St.  582,  53  N.  E.  258;  Matter  of 
Roberg,  18  Ohio  C.C.  367;  U.  S.  Mort. 
&  T.  Co.  v.  Wood,  19  Ohio  C.  C.  358. 

71  State  v.  Krost,  140  Ind.  41,  39 
N.  E.  46;  State  v.  Board  of  Com'rs, 
140  Ind.  506,  40  N.  E.  113;  State  v. 
Yates,  66  Ohio  St.  546,  64  N.  E.  570 
(overruling  Pearson  v.  Stephens,  56 
Ohio  St.  126,  46  N.  E.  511);  State  v. 
Garver,  60  Ohio  St.  555,  64  N.  E. 
573;  Milwaukee  County  v.  Isenring, 
109  Wis.  9,  85  N.  W.  131,  53  L.  R. 
A.  635.  See  State  v.  Garver,  13 
Ohio  C.  D.  140. 

n  State  v.  Brown,  60  Ohio  St.  462, 
54  N.  E.  525. 


M)8  t.l.M  i:  a  i      \\i>    BPJ  OIAL    laws. 

local  because  it  provides  that  it  shall  not  apply  to  counties 
where  the  bu eject-matter  is  regulated  by  prior  special  arts.73 

The  following  acts  were  held  not  local  or  special:  An  act 
permitting  a  higher  rate  of  taxation  for  road  purposes  in 
counties  having  an  assessed  valuation  of  $15,000,000 or  over 
and  also  having  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  of 
macadamized  and  graveled  roads;w  an  act  in  regard  to  the 
construction  of  highways  and  bridges  and  limited  to  coun- 

-  adjoining  a  city  of  1,000,000  or  more  inhabitants;7''  an 
act  to  provide  for  the  acquisition  of  certain  rights  in  fresh- 
water lakes  and  in  adjoining  lands  for  public  use  and  limited 
to  counties  containing  a  lake  of  one  hundred  acres  area  or 
over:  T';  an  act  relating  to  poor  relief  by  counties  which  ex- 
cepted cities  from  its  operation  and  thereby  excepted  a  county 
co-extensive  with  a  city;77  an  act  organizing  certain  new- 
counties  and  giving  the  first  county  commissioners  a  longer 
term  than  was  provided  by  the  general  law.78  But  in  case 
of  the  act  last  referred  to,  a  provision  limiting  the  rate  of 
taxation  as  to  such  new  counties  was  held  special  and  void.7' 

The  constitution  of  California  provides  for  a  division 
of  counties  into  classes,  according  to  population,  for  the 
purpose  of  fixing  the  fees  and  compensation  of  county  offi- 
cers.80 It  is  held,  construing  the  provision,  that  it  is  man- 
datory, that  such  classification  must  be  made  as  a  condi- 
tion to  valid  legislation  on  the  subject,81  that  it  rests  with 

"3  Mattox  v.  Knox,  96  Ga.  403,  23  "  Rose  v.  Beaver  County,  204  Pa. 

S.   E.   307;   Cheltenham   Township  St.  372,  54  Atl.  26a 

1,140   Pa.  St.  136,  21  Atl.  23a  ^Spencer   v.   Griffith,  74  Minn. 

See  Stewart  v.  Collier,  91   Ga.  117,  55,  70  N.  W.  1018.     See  Schweiss  v. 

17  S.  K.  279.  District  Court,  23  Nev.  226,  45  Pac. 

W  State  v.  Arnold,  136  Mo.  446,  38  289,  34  L.  R.  A.  602. 

S.  \V.  79.  '■'  State  v.  Walker,  83  Minn.  295, 

7   Tr-anor  v.  Eichhorn,  74  Hun,  86  N.  W.  104. 

N.  V.  S.  314.  80  Art.  XI,  sec.  5;  Cody  v.  Murphy, 

•"  Albright  v.  Sussex  Co.  Lake  &  89  Cal.  522,  26  Pac.  1081. 

Park    Commission,  68  N.  J.  L.  523,  81  Dwver  v.  Parker,  115  Cal.  544. 

68  Atl.  012.  47  Pac.  372;  Knight  v.  Martin,  128 

Cal.  245,  60  Pac.  849. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  409 

the  legislature  to  say  how  many  classes  there  shall  be,82  and 
that  legislation  upon  other  subjects  for  the  classes  so  estab- 
lished is  unauthorized  and  void.83  Some  officers  may  be 
compensated  by  fees  and  others  by  a  salary,  without  violat- 
ing the  rule  of  uniformity.84  The  legislature  must  fix  the 
salary  and  not  delegate  it  to  the  county  boards.85 

An  act  provided  that  hospitals  established  in  cities  of 
20,000  inhabitants  or  more  should  receive  from  the  county 
a  certain  sum  for  the  support  of  poor  patients  under  treat- 
ment in  such  hospitals.  The  act  was  held  to  make  an  arbi- 
trary classification  of  counties  for  the  purpose  of  imposing 
such  liability  and  to  be  void.86  "Where  an  act  was  so  framed 
as  to  require  administration  to  be  granted  under  certain 
conditions  in  counties  of  200,000  population  to  the  public 
administrator  and  in  all  other  counties  under  the  same  con- 
ditions to  the  widow  or  next  of  kin,  it  was  held  that  the 
classification  had  no  reasonable  relation  to  the  purpose  of 
the  act  and  that  it  was  special  legislation  and  void.87  The 
administration  of  estates  is  a  subject  of  a  general  nature 
and  laws  in  relation  thereto  must  be  of  uniform  operation.88 
Hence  a  law  providing  for  the  appointment  of  certain  cor- 
porations as  administrators,  executors,  etc.,  and  applicable 
only  to  certain  counties,  is  unconstitutional.89 

§  218.  Schools,  school  districts  and  school  affairs. —  In 
Ohio  it  is  held  that  the  creation  of  school  districts  is  a  sub- 


82  Summer  land  v.  Bicknell,  111  84Vail  v.  San  Diego  County,  126 
Cal.  567.  44  Pac.  232.  Cal.  35,  58  Pac.  392. 

83  San  Luis  Obispo  Co.  v.  Graves,  85  People  v.  Johnson,  95  Cal.  471, 
84  Cal.  71,  23  Pac.  1032;  Welsh  v.  31  Pac.  611;  Dougherty  v.  Austin, 
Bramlett,  98  Cal.  219,  33  Pac.  66;  94  Cal.  601, 28  Pac.  834,  29  Pac.  1092, 
"Walser  v.  Austin,  104  Cal.  128,  37  16  L.  R.  A.  161. 

Pac.  869;  Bloss  v.  Lewis,  109  Cal.  86York   Hospital  &    Dispensary 

493,  41  Pac.  1081;  Marsh  v.  Hanley,  Ass'n  v.  York  County,  12  Pa.  Dist. 

Ill   Cal.  368.43  Pac.  975;  Hale  v.  Ct.  539. 

McGettigan,   114   Cal.  112,  45   Pac.  87  Strong  v.  Dignan,  207  111.  385. 

1049;  San   Francisco  v.  Broderick,  88  Schumacher    v.    McCallip,    69 

125  Cal.  188,  57  Pac.  887;  Pratt  v.  Ohio  St,  500. 

Brown.  135  Cal.  649,  67  Pac.  10S2.  8«  Id. 


410 


<.i  \  i  RAL    and    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


• "  a  general  nature  which  must  be  regulated  by  general 
laws  of  uniform  operation,  and  that  a  special  act  creating 
a  particular  school  district  is  local  and  void.90  The  same 
ruling  has  been  made  in  Oklahoma."1  The  constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  forbids  Local  or  special  laws  "regulating  the 
management  of  public  schools,  the  building  or  repairing  of 
3,and  the  raising  of  money  for  such  purposes."  M 
It  is  held  that  school  districts  ma}'  be  classified  as  well  as 
municipalities,  and  that  districts  coterminous  with  cities  of 
the  third  class  may  constitute  a  class  for  legislation  con- 
cerning their  government  and  affairs.93  There  would  seem 
to  be  no  reason  why  school  districts  may  not  be  classified 
according  to  population  for  purposes  of  their  administration 
and  government,  as  well  as  municipalities.94 

An  act  providing  a  method  for  the  government  of 
schools  in  municipalities  divided  into  wards,  different  from 
that  in  other  localities  was  held  not  to  be  a  legitimate 
classification.95  School  districts  whose  territory  has  been 
changed  by  a  change  of  municipal  boundaries  may  consti- 
tute a  class  for   legislation   with  reference   to   the   conse- 


9»  State  v.  Spellmire.  67  Ohio  St. 
7  7.  65  N.  K  619,  overruling  State  v. 
Shearer,  46  Ohio  St.  275,  20  N.  E. 
335,  and  confirming  State  v.  Pow- 
ers, 38  Ohio  St.  54.  The  following 
are  earlier  cases  following  State 
v.  Powers:  State  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
i,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  152;  State  v. 
Board  of  Education,  3  Ohio  C.  D. 

91  Territory  v.  School  District,  10 
Okl.  556,  64  Pac.  241.  But  where 
there  is  no  constitutional  provision 
applicable  except  that  requiring 
general  laws  of  uniform  operation, 
ive  held  that  a  law 
Ling  a  particular  school  dis- 
trict, or  applicable  to  only  one,  is 
valid.  Chicago,  R.  L  &  P.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  A  w  a.  99  Iowa,  550.  68  X.  W.  881; 


Eichholtz  v.  Martin,   53  Kan.  486, 
36  Pac.  1064. 
M  Art.  3,  sec.  52. 

93  Commonwealth  v.  Gilligan,  195 
Pa.  St.  504,  46  Atl.  124;  Common- 
wealth v.  Shires,  195  Pa.  St.  515, 
46  Atl.  1102;  Commonwealth  v. 
Howell,  195  Pa.  St.  519,  46  Atl.  1102; 
Commonwealth  v.  Hitchens,  200 
Pa.  St.  508.  50  Atl.  91;  Common- 
wealth v.  Guthrie,  203  Pa.  St.  209, 
52  Atl.  254;  School  District  v. 
Smith,  195  Pa.  St.  515,  46  Atl.  127. 
Compare  Chalfant  v.  Edwards,  173 
Pa.  St.  246,  33  Atl.  1048. 

94  Lewis  v.  Jersey  City,  66  N.  J. 
L.  582,  50  Atl.  346. 

9»  State  v.  Miller,  100  Mo.  439,  13 
S.  W.  077;  State  v.  Long,  21  Mont. 
20,  52  Pac.  645. 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  411 

quences  of  such  change.96  An  act  to  pension  teachers  is  of  a 
general  nature,  and  its  operation  cannot  be  limited.97  A 
law  annexing  school  districts  under  the  general  law  to 
school  districts  under  special  charters  was  held  special  and 
void.93 

§  219  (126).  Railroads. —  Railroad  companies  have  for 
some  purposes  constituted  a  class  for  general  legislation; 
for  other  purposes  such  companies  may  be  divided  into  sub- 
classes, and  legislation  in  regard  to  one  of  such  classes  made 
to  differ  from  that  applied  to  another.  An  Iowa  act  di- 
vided the  railroads  of  the  state  into  classes  according  to 
business  in  regulating  rates  of  freight.  It  was  held  not  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution,  requiring  laws  of  a  general 
nature  to  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state.99 
"Waite,  C.  J.,  said:  "It  operates  uniformly  on  each  class, 
and  this  is  all  the  constitution  requires.  .  .  .  It  is  very 
clear  that  a  uniform  rate  of  charges  for  all  railroad  compa- 
nies in  the  state  might  operate  unjustly  upon  some.  It  was 
proper,  therefore,  to  provide  in  some  way  for  an  adaptation 
of  the  rates  to  the  circumstances  of  the  different  roads;  and 
the  general  assembly,  in  the  exercise  of  its  legislative  discre- 
tion, has  seen  fit  to  do  this  by  a  system  of  classification." 
An  act  provided  that  "Every  railroad  company  shall  be 
liable  for  all  damages  sustained  by  any  person,  including 
employees  of  the  company,  in  consequence  of  any  neglect 
of  the  agents,  or  by  any  mismanagement  of  the  engineers 
or  other  employees  of  the  corporation,  to  any  person  sus- 
taining such  damage."  It  was  objected  to  this  law  that  it 
was  limited  in  its  operation  to  railroad  companies,  and  sub- 
jected them  to  a  rule  or  liability  from  which  other  persons, 
both  natural  and  artificial,  were  exempt.  The  objection 
was  held  untenable.  The  court  said :  "  These  laws  are  gen- 
eral and  uniform,  not  because  they  operate  upon  every  per- 

96  Sugar  Notch  Borough,  192  Pa.  98In  re  School  Districts,  26  Colo. 

St.  319,  43  Atl.  985.  130,  56  Pac.  173. 

^State  v.  Kuntz,  21  Ohio  C.  C.  !,9C,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94- 

261.  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94. 


(.1   M   1.A1.     AM>    SPECIAL     LAWS. 

boo  in  the  state,  for  they  do  not,  l>ut  beoause  every  person 
who  is  brought  into  the  relation  and  circumstances  provided 
for  is  affected  by  it.    They  are  general  and  uniform  in  their 

ration  upon  all  persons  in  the  like  situation;  and  the 
fact  of  their  being  general  and  uniform  is  not  affected  by 
the  number  of  persons  within  the  scope  of  their  operation."1 
A  Missouri  statute  gave  an  exceptional  measure  of  damages 
railroad  companies  for  injury  to  animals.  It  was 
objected  that  the  act  was  partial  in  regard  to  the  rule  of 
damages,  because  if  any  private  person,  or  any  other  person 
than  a  railroad  corporation,  caused  a  like  damage,  the  act 
did  not  apply,  and  the  most  that  could  be  recovered  would 
be  the  value  of  the  animal.  The  objection  was  overruled. 
The  court  said:  "This  right  of  action  is  given  to  all  per- 
sons who  may  be  thus  injured.  It  is  given  as  well  to  any 
association  of  people,  and  to  railroad  corporations  whose 
stock  may  be  injured  by  a  railroad."  -  Another  act  put  all 
owiers  and  operators  of  railroads,  whether  natural  persons, 
companies  or  corporations,  on  an  equal  footing,  by  making 
the  term  "railroad  corporation"  to  include  them.  Though 
directed  against  railroads  alone,  while  no  other  common 
carriers  are  brought  within  its  operation,  it  was  not  partial 
for  that  reason.  And  the  court  thus  remarks  upon  it: 
"  Bad  the  legislature  deemed  it  essential  to  the  protection 
of  human  life  and  private  property  they  wrould  doubt- 
less have  extended  the  statute  to  carriers  b}'  coach  and 
water;  but  as  the  class  of  propert\r  and  human  life  pro- 
tected by  this  provision  of  the  statute  is  not  exposed  to  like 
perils  incident  to  coach  and  water  travel,  the  occasion  and 

issity  for  so  extending  the  statute  did  not  exist.  Class 
ion  is  not  necessarily  obnoxious  to  the  constitution. 

i  McAnnioh  v.   Miss.  &  M.  R.  R.  State  v.  Spaude,  37  Minn.  322.  34  N. 

.20  Iowa,   338;  United  States  W.  164;  Bannon'v.  State, 49  Ark  167, 

Express   Co.   v.  Ellyson,   28   Iowa,  4  8.  W.  635;  Dow  v.  Beidelman,  49 

homasoo  v.  Ashwortb,  73  Cal.  Ark.  825. 

73;  Phillips  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  '-Humes  v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  82 

a  Mo.  540,  24  Am   &  ELRCaa  Mo.  221. 
-rate    v.  Wilcox,  4-"}  Mo.  4,58; 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  413 

It  is  a  settled  construction  of  similar  constitutional  provis- 
ions that  a  legislative  act  which  applies  to  and  embraces  all 
persons  who  are  or  who  may  come  into  like  situation  and 
circumstances  is  not  partial."3  And  a  like  conclusion  was 
arrived  at  in  respect  to  an  act  which  gave  a  justice  an  ex- 
ceptional jurisdiction  in  the  particular  class  of  actions  just 
mentioned.4 

The  following  acts  relating  to  railroads  were  held  not  to 
be  special  or  class  legislation:  An  act  authorizing  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  receiver  of  any  railroad  which  has  neglected 
for  ten  days  to  run  trains  over  any  part  of  its  road,  and 
which  excepted  roads  at  seaside  resorts,  not  exceeding  four 
miles  in  length,  intended  merely  for  the  transportation  of 
summer  travelers  and  tourists;9  exempting  railroad  em- 
ployees from  working  on  the  public  roads;6  an  act  requir- 
ing railroads  at  all  stations  where  there  are  telegraph  offices 
to  post  information  as  to  whether  trains  are  on  time  or 
not;7. an  act  giving  an  action  against  railroad  companies 
for  negligently  causing  the  death  of  any  one  not  an  em- 
ployee of  the  company;8  making  a  class  of  railroads  ex- 
tending into  two  or  more  counties  for  the  purpose  of  col- 
lecting delinquent  taxes;9  an  act  which  provides  for  assess- 
ing railroads  by  a  state  board  and  all  other  property  by 
county  assessors;10  an  act  providing  for  the  assessment  of 
railroads  omitted   in  specified  years;11  an  act  imposing  a 

3  Humes  v.  Missouri,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  7  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State, 

82  Mo.  221;  Snyder  v.  Warford,  11  142  Ind.  428,  41  N.  E.  937. 

Mo.  513;  IVIerritt  v.  Knife  Falls  B.  8  Schoolcraft  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R. 

Corp.,  34  Minn.  245;  Central  Trust  R.  Co.,  92  Ky.  233,  17  S.  W.  567. 

Co.  v.  Sloan,  65  Iowa,  655:  Peoria,  9 People  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Duggan,  109  111.  105  Cal.  576,  38  Pac.  905.    Compare 

537,  50  Am.  Rep.  619.  People  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  83 

4 Phillips  v.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  86  Cal.  393,  23  Pac.  303. 

Mo.  540.  "Sawyer  v.  Dooley,  21  Nev.  390, 

»  Delaware  Bay  &  Cape  May  R.  R.  32  Pac.  437. 

Co.  v.  Markley,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  139,  16  u  Bloxham  v.  Florida,  etc.  R.  R. 

At!.  436.  Co.,  35  Fla.  625,  17  So.  902. 

«State  v.  Womble,  112  N.  C.  802, 
17  S.  E.  491,  19  L,  R.  A.  827. 


1  II  ,.1  M   i:  Al.     AMI    SPECIAL     LAWS. 

privilege  tax  upon  all  railroads  not  paying  2cn  ad  valorem 
tax;1-'  an  act  authorizing  passenger  railways  in  cities  of  the 
olass  to  use  other  power  than  horse  power,  with  the 
oonsent  of  the  city;11  arts  requiring  persons  or  corporations 
operating  electric  ears,14  or  cars  propelled  by  steam,  cable 
or  electricity,18  to  protect  the  motorman  from  the  weather. 
\n  act  imposing  upon  railroads  a  double  liability  for  dam- 

•  V  lire  was  held  valid  and  not  class  legislation.16  So 
of  aits  imposing  upon  railroads  a  special  liability  for  inju- 
ries to  stock  by  reason  of  a  failure  to  fence  their  tracks.17 
But  an  act  making  railroad  companies  absolutely  liable  for 

killed  was  held  to  be  class  legislation.18  An  act  pro- 
vided for  the  presentation  of  certain  claims  against  railroad 

lines  by  filing  the  same  with  a  station  agent  and 
enacted  that,  if  the  same  were  not  paid  within  thirty  days 
and  suit  was  brought  thereon  and  sustained,  the  plaintiff 
should  recover  an  attorney's  fee.  This  was  held  to  be 
class  legislation  and  void.11* 

220.  Particular  acts  —  Courts  and  judicial  procedure. 
An  act  permitting  plaintiff  to  expedite  a  cause  was  held 
not  local  or  special  because  the  same  privilege  was  not  ac- 
corded the  defendant.-"  So  of  an  act  requiring  the  plaintiff 
to  oive  bond  for  costs  in  actions  for  slander  and  libel.21     An 

12Knoxville  &  Ohio  R.  B,  Co.  v.  Schimmele  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R. 

Harris,  99  Tenn.  684,         S.  W.  115.  Co.,  34  Minn.  216,  25  N.  W.  347; 

eves  v.  I'lula.  Traction  Co.,  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Humes,  115 

152  Pa  St.  153,  25  Atl.  516.  U.  S.  512,  5  S.  C.  Rep.  110,  29  L.  Ed. 

te  v.  Nelson.  52  Ohio  St.  88,  403;  Minneapolis  &  St.  L.  R.  R,  Co. 

.  :..  22,  26  L.  R.  A.  317;  State  v.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  26,  9  S.  C. 

v.  Whitaker,  100  Mo.  59,  60  S.  W.  Rep.  207,  32  L.  Ed.  585. 

isCatril  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  2 

ite  v.  Smith,  58  Minn.  35,  59  Idaho,  570,  21  Pac.  416. 

N.  W.  wUulf,  Colo.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

i«  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  150, 17  S.  C.  Rep.  255, 

Matthews,  174   U.   S.  96,  19  S.  C.  41  L.  Ed.  000. 

B09,  43  L.  Ed.  909;  Atchison,  2U  Louisville  &  N.  A.  &  C.R.  R.  Co. 

a  F.  By.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  58  v.  Wallace,  130  111.  87.  26  N.  E.  493, 

.       ?    \:>  Pac,  002.  11  L.  R,  A.  787. 

"Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.   Ry.  21  Smith  v.  McDermott,  93  Cal. 

>9   Minn.   425,    13   N.   W.   073;  421,   29  Pac.   34.      To  same  i 


GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  4:15 

act  permitting  summons  to  be  served  in  counties  adjoining 
that  in  which  it  was  issued  in  actions  of  trespass  and  for 
injuries  to  land,  conversion  of  crops,  and  claims  for  labor 
performed  by  individuals  and  firms,  was  held  to  give  spe- 
cial privileges  to  certain  suitors  and  to  be  void  as  class  legis- 
lation.22 The  following  were  held  void  as  being  special  or 
class  legislation:  An  act  as  to  witness  fees  in  criminal  cases, 
and  limited  to  counties  of  one  class;23  that  courts  shall  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  ordinances  of  cities  of  the  fifth  class; 24 
prohibiting  appeals  from  the  circuit  court  where  the  recov- 
ery is  §75  or  less,  and  which  does  not  apply  to  county  courts 
having  concurrent  jurisdiction;25  creating  a  justice  court 
for  a  particular  town; :e  providing  a  special  mode  of  mov- 
ing for  a  new  trial  in  proceedings  under  the  irrigation  law ; 27 
that  the  judge  of  the  criminal  court  in  a  particular  county 
may  be  called  in  by  the  circuit  judge  of  any  county  to  hold 
the  circuit  court  in  such  county,  and  in  such  case  that  he 
shall  have  the  powers  of  a  circuit  judge;28  conferring  upon 
district  courts  power  to  remove  police  magistrates  in  metro- 
politan cities;29  an  act  creating  a  juvenile  court.30 

§221.  Same  —  Insurance  and  insurance  companies. — 
Different  regulations  may  be  applied  to  the  old  line  life  in- 
surance companies  than  to  those  doing  business  on  the  as- 
sessment plan.31     An  act  providing  that  insurance  companies 

Kling  v.  Packet  Co.,  101  Tenn.  99,  113  Cal.  503,  39  Pac.  769,  45  Pac. 

46  S.  W.  24.  822,  1047. 

2-0'Connell   v.  Menominee  Bay  28  state  v.  Hill,  147  Mo.  63,  47  S. 

Shore  Lumber  Co.,  113  Mich.  124,  W.  798. 

71  N.  W.  449.  29  Gordon  v.  Moores,  61  Neb.  345, 

23  Turner  v.  County  of  Siskiyou,  85  N.  W.  298. 

109  Cal.  332.  42  Pac.  434.  so  Mansfield's  Case,  22  Pa.  Supr. 

'-■»  Tulare  v.  Herren,  126  Cal.  226,  Ct,  224. 

58  Pac.  530.  si  Haynie  v.    Knights  Templars, 

2*McClain  v.  Williams,  11  S.  D.  etc.  Co.,  139  Mo.  416,  41  S.  W.  461; 

CO,  75  N.  W.  391.  Northwestern  Masonic  Aid   Ass'n 

2K  Miner  v.  Justice's   Court,   121  v.  Waddell,   138  Mo.  628.  40  S.  W. 

Cal.  264,  53  Pac.  795.  648;  Fidelity   &    Casualty   Co.    v. 

a'Cullen  v.  Glendora  Water  Co.,  Freeman,  109  Fed.  847,  48  C.  C.  A. 

692. 


4  1  «i  i.l   M   l-'AI.     AM)     8P1  ■    1  A  I       LAWS. 

ild  pay  the  full  amount  of  the  loss  not  exceeding  the 
amount  of  the  policy,  and  that  all  stipulations  in  the  policy 
the  contrary  should  be  void,  and  excepting  from  its  pro- 
visions insurance  on  cotton  in  hales,  was  held  not  to  he:  class 

station.83  An  act  exempting  insurance  companies  from 
suit  for  ninety  days  after  notice  was  held  not  to  he  void  as 
class  Legislation.1"  Foreign  insurance  companies  may  be 
treated  as  a  class  for  legislative  purposes.34 

12,  Same  —  Building  and  loan  associations.— "The 
operation  of  building  and  loan  associations  proper,  where 
they  adhere  to  the  basic  principles  of  their  organization, 
differ  so  radically  from  ordinary  loan  transactions  as  to  af- 
ford a  proper  basis  for  classification,  and  to  justify  the  leg- 
ature  in  making  a  separate  class  of  them;35  hence  a  stat- 
utory exemption  of  them  from  the  operation  of  the  usury 
laws  is  constitutional."36  Such  an  exemption  is  neither  spe- 
cial nor  class  legislation.37 

223,  Same— Wages— Labor— Employees.— Laws  to 
secure  payment  of  the  wages  of  laborers  employed  in  cer- 
tain industries,  and  affecting  all  employers  alike,  are  held 
not  to  be  class  legislation.38  But  when  the  benefit  is  con- 
lined  to  laborers  employed  by  corporations,  such  laws  are 
void  as  class  legislation.39  Laws  regulating  the  payment  of 
wages  by  certain  classes  of  corporations,  such  as  mining 
and  manufacturing  companies,  are  held  to  be  class  legisla- 

w  Dugger  v.    Insurance    Co.,  95  N.   W.  373;  Livingston   L.    &    B. 

Tenn.  2  15,  32  S.  W.  5, 28  L.  R.  A.  796.  Ass*n  v.   Drummond,  49  Neb.  200, 

bristie  v.  Life  Indemnity  &  68  N.   W.   37.V,  Vermont   Loan  & 

Invest.  Co..  82  Iowa,  360,  48  N.  W.  04.  Trust  Co.   v.  Whithed,  2  N.  D.  82, 

M  Kennedy  v.   Agricultural  lus.  49  N.  W.  318. 

Co.,  165  Pa  St  179,  80  Atl.  724.  Fitch  v.  Applegate.  24  Wash. 

v.  Butler  St.  Foundry  &  35,  G4  Pac.  147;  Holla  v.  Person,  1 

Iron  Co..  201   111.  236,  66  N.  W.  349:  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  357;   Ripley  v.  Evans, 

M  Zenith  B.  &  L  Ass'n  v.  Heim-  87  Mich.  217,  49  N.  W.  504. 

bach,  77  Minn.  97,  79  N.  W.  609.  3!'  Johnson  v.  Goodyear  Min.  Co.. 

wa    Savings   &  L   Ass'n  v.  127  CaL  4,59  Pac.  804,78 Am.St. Rep. 

II.  nit.  107  Iowa,  297,  77  N.  W.  1050,  17,47  L  R.  A.  838;  Slocum  v.  Bear 

!..  B.   A.  689;  People's  B.  &  L  Valley  Irr.  Co..  122CaL  555,  55  Pac. 

.  Billing,   104  Mich.  180,  G2  403,  08  Am.  St.  Rep.  68. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


417 


tion.40  Acts  regulating  the  liability  of  railroad  companies 
to  their  employees  for  the  negligence  of  fellow-servants  are 
not  class  legislation,41  but  otherwise  if  they  apply  to  all  cor- 
porations, as  in  such  case  individuals  and  corporations  car- 
rying on  the  same  business  would  be  subjected  to  different 
rules.42  Such  an  act  applying  to  railroad  companies  is  held 
not  to  include  street  railroads,43  nor  a  company  organized 
under  the  general  railroad  law  but  engaged  in  operating  a 
street  railway.44 

Acts  making  eight  hours  a  legal  day's  work  in  certain 
kinds  of  employment  are  held  void  for  the  same  reason;45 
but  such  a  law  applicable  to  laborers  employed  by  the  state 
or  by  counties  or  municipal  corporations  or  by  contractors 
for  public  works  was  held  valid.46     An  act  which  made  it  a 


49  Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People, 
147  111.  66,  35  N.  E.  62,  37  Am.  St. 
Rep.  206,  22  L.  R.  A.  340;  Dixon  v. 
Poe,  159  Ind.  492, 65  N.  E.  518;  State 
v.  Loomis,  115  Mo.  307,  22  S.  W.  350, 
21  L.  R.  A.  789;  State  v.  Goodwill, 
33  W.  Va.  179,  10  S.  E.  283,  25  Am. 
St.  Rep.  863,  6  L.  R.  A.  847.  And 
see  State  v.  Fire  Creek  Coal  &  Coke 
Co.,  33  W.  Va.  188, 10  S.  E.  288,  25 
Am.  St.  Rep.  891. 

41  Pittsburgh,  C,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Montgomery,  152  Ind.  1,  49 
N.  E.  582,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  301; 
Powell  v.  Sherwood,  162  Mo.  605, 
63  S.  W.  485;  Cambron  v.  Omaha, 
etc.  R.  R  Co.,  165  Mo.  543,  65  S.  W. 
745;  Callahan  v.  St.  Louis  Mer- 
chants' Bridge  Terminal  R  R  Co., 
170  Mo.  473,  71  S.  W.  208;  Sams  v. 
St.  Louis  &  M.  R  R  Co.,  174  Mo.  53, 
73  S.  W.  686;  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Mac  key,  127  U.  S.  205,  8  S.  C. 
Rep.  1161,  32  L.  Ed.  107;  Minneap- 
olis &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Herrick,  127 
U.  S.  210,  8  S.  E.  Rep.  1176,  32  L. 
Ed.  109;  Tullis  v.  Lake  Erie  &  W. 
R  R  Co.,  175  U.  S.  348,  20  S.  C.  Rep. 
27 


136,  44  L.  Ed.  192;  Cincinnati  H. 
D.  R  R  Co.  v.  Thiebaud,  114  Fed. 
918,  52  C.  C.  A.  538. 

42  Ballard  v.  Miss.  Cotton  Oil  Co., 
81  Miss.  507.  And  see  Tullis  v. 
Lake  Erie  &  W.  R  R  Co.,  175  U.  S. 
348,  20  S.  C.  Rep.  136,  44  L.  Ed.  192. 

«  Funk  v.  St.  Paul  City  Ry.  Co., 
61  Minn.  435,  63  N.  W.  1099. 

44  Sams  v.  St.  Louis  &  M.  R  R 
Co.,  174  Mo.  53,  73  S.  W.  686. 

43  In  re  House  Bill  No.  203,  2t 
Colo.  29,  39  Pac.  328;  In  re  Morgan, 
26  Colo.  415,  58  Pac.  1071,  77  Am. 
St.  Rep.  269,  47  L.  R.  A.  52;  Low  v. 
Rees  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb.  127,  59 
N.  W.  362,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  670,  24 
L  R  A.  702.  An  act  making  ten 
hours  a  clay's  work  for  street  rail- 
road employees  and  excepting  ex- 
isting contracts  from  its  operation 
was  held  valid  in  Opinion  to  the 
Governor,  24  R  I.  603. 

4«  In  re  Dalton,  61  Kan.  257,  59 
Pac.  336;  State  v.  Atkin,  64  Kan. 
174,  67  Pac.  519;  Atkin  v.  Kansas. 
191  U.  S.  207. 


H8 


GKNl  UAL    AM>    SP]  OIAL    LAWS. 


penal  offense  for  any  officer  or  agent  of  a  corporation  to 
discharge  an  employee  on  aocounl  of  his  connection  with  a 
labor  organization,  or  to  interfere  to  prevent  such  relation, 
was  held  special  legislation  and  void  because  it  did  not  ap- 
ply to  all  employers:*7  But  where  such  a  law  applies  to  all 
employers  it  is  valid." 

A  statute  provided  that  when  a  corporation  discharged 
an  employee  for  cause,  the  unpaid  wages  of  such  employee 
then  earned  at  the  contract  rate,  without  abatement  or  de- 
duction, should  become  due  and  payable  on  the  day  of  such 
discharge.  It  was  held  to  apply  to  all  of  a  class  and  there- 
fore not  to  be  class  legislation.49 

224.  Same  —  Mines. —  An  act  to  regulate  coal  mines  is 
not  rendered  local  or  special  because  it  exempts  from  the 
operation  of  its  provisions  those  emplo37ing  but  few  men, 
such  as  ten  or  twenty.'"  Anthracite  mines  and  bituminous 
mines  may  be  legislated  for  as  distinct  classes.51  An  act 
requiring  mine  operators  to  furnish  safeguards  for  employees 


47  Commonwealth  v.  Clark,  14 
Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  43.").  The  court  says: 
"To  be  more  explicit,  it  extends 
protection  to  the  employees  of  cor- 
porations in  their  ri^ht  to  form 
or  join  labor  organizations,  whilst 
denying  the  same  protection  to 
the  employees  of  individuals,  firms 
and  limited  partnerships;  it  de- 
prives corporations  of  the  right  to 
discharge  employees  for  a  certain 
cause,  even  though  this  right  be 
reserved  in  the  contract 

nployment;  whilst  leaving  in- 
dividuals, firms  and  limited  part- 
nerships free  to  discharge  their  em- 
ployees for  the  same  cause  or  at 
will,  provided  no  contract  or  law 

nst  conspiracy  be  violated.    As 

been    well  said,   arbitrary  se- 

•  n  can  never  be  justified  by 

calling   it  classification."    A  sim- 


ilar law  was  held  invalid  in  Wis- 
consin as  an  interference  with  the 
liberty  of  contract.  State  v. 
Kreutzberg,  114  Wis.  530,  90  N. 
W.  1098.  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  934. 

48  State  v.  Justus,  85  Minn.  279, 
88  N.  W.  759,  89  Am.  St.   Rep.  550. 

49Leep  v.  Railway  Co.,  58  Ark. 
407,  25  S.  W.  75.  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
109,  23  LR.A,  264.  But  see  cases 
cited  in  the  preceding  notes  of  this 
section. 

«>  Woodson  v.  State,  69  Ark.  521, 
65  S.  W.  405;  Durkin  v.  Kingston 
Coal  Co.,  171  Pa,  St  193,33  Atl.  237; 
Commonwealth  v.  Jones,  4  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  362. 

51  Durkin  v.  Kingston  Coal  Co., 
171  Pa.  St.  193,  33  Atl.  237;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Jones,  4  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 
862;  Read  v.  Clearfield  Co.,  12  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  419. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  419 

was  held  not  class  legislation.52  But  an  act  in  regard  to  the 
weighing  of  coal  at  mines,  which  applied  only  to  mines 
whose  product  was  shipped  by  rail  or  water,  was  held  spe- 
cial and  void.53 

§  225.  Sanie —  Sunday  laws. —  A  law  which  prohibits 
the  carrying  on  of  business  on  Sunday,  but  excepts  certain 
trades,  such  as  hotels,  drug  stores,  livery -stables,  undertak- 
ers, etc.,  is  held  to  be  valid  legislation  in  some  states,54  but 
class  legislation  in  others.55  So  of  a  law  which  prohibits 
the  business  of  barbering  on  Sunday.  Some  courts  hold 
such  a  law  special  or  class  legislation,56  and  others  the  re- 
verse.57 A  New  York  statute  which  prohibited  barbering 
on  Sunday,  except  in  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Saratoga, 
was  held  not  to  be  class  legislation  by  reason  of  the  excep- 
tion.58 

§  226.  Same  —  Allowing  plaintiff  an  attorney's  fee. — 
A  statute  allowing  the  plaintiff  to  recover  an  attorney's  fee 
in  a  suit  for  wages  was  held  not  to  be  special  or  class  legis- 
lation in  Illinois.59  Statutes  allowing  the  plaintiff  to  recover 
an  attorney's  fee  in  suits  upon  insurance  policies  have  been 
held  valid  in  many  cases.60     Statutes  allowing  the  plaintiff 

62  Davis  Coal   Co.  v.  Polland,  158  151,  57  N.  W.  1094,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 

Ind.  607,  62  N.  E.  492,  92  Am.  St.  589,  22  L.  R.  A.  696;  State  v.  Petit, 

Rep.  319.  74  Minn.  376,  77  N.  W.  225;  Breyer 

53  Harding  v.  People,  160  111.  459,  v.  State,  102  Tenn.  103,  50   S.  W. 

43  N.  E.  624,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  344,  32  769.     But  in  the  latter  state  a  law 

L.  R.  A.  445.  which  forbade    barbers    to    keep 

84  Searcy  v.  State,  40  Tex.  Crim.  open  their  baths  on  Sunday  was 
App.  460,  50  S.  W.  699,  51  S.  W.  held  class  legislation.  Ragio  v. 
1119.  53  S.  W.  344;  State  v.  Nichols,  State,  86  Tenn.  272,  6  S.  W  401. 

28  Wash.  628,  69  Pac.  372.  58  People  v.  Harnor,  1  App.  Div. 

85  State  v.  Sopher,  25  Utah,  318,     459,  37  N.  Y.  S.  314. 

71  Pac.  482.  59  Vogel  v.  Pekoe,  157  111.  339,  42 

56  Eden  v.  People,  161  111.  296,  43    N.  E.  386,  30  L.  R.  A.  491. 

N.  E.  1108,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  365,  32  «o  British  Am.  Ass'n  Co.  v.  Brad- 

L.  R.  A.  659;  State  v.  Granneman,  ford,  60  Kan.  82,  55  Pac.  332;  Hart- 

132  Mo.  326,  33  S.  W.  784;  Tacoma  ford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Warbritton,  66 

v.  Krech,  15  Wash.  296,  46  Pac.  255.  Kan.  93,  71  Pac.  278;  Insurance  Co. 

57  Ex  parte  Northrop,  41  Ore.  489,  of  North  Am.  v.  Bachler,  44  Neb- 
69  Pac.445;  People  v.Bellet,99  Mich.  549,  62  N.  W.  911;  Lancashire  Ins. 


i.l.M   I :  A  I .    AND    SPECIAL     LAWS. 


an  attorney's  fee  in  suits  against  railroad  companies  for  in- 
juries to  stock  are  held  valid  in  some  cases  and  void  mothers.61 
There  is  a  similar  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  validity  of 
Btatntes  allowing  the  plaintiff  an  attorney's  fee  in  mechan- 
ic's lien  suits 

£  'J*J?  (125).  Same— Criminal  laws. — Criminal  laws  must 
be  general  and  have  a  uniform  operation.61 

In  1.x  parte  Falkw  it  was  held  that  a  statute  providing 
punishment  for  an  act  which  is  malum  in  se  wherever  com- 
mitted, heing  a  law  of  a  general  nature,  cannot  be  made 
local  on  the  ground  that  the  inhibited  act  is  a  greater  evil 
in  a  large  city  than  in  other  parts  of  the  state.  The  court, 
by  Okey,  J.,  say:  "The  act  inhibited  .  .  .  [having 
burglars'  tools  in  his  possession]  is  not  merely  immoral  but 
plainly  vicious;  it  is  one  of  very  serious  and  dangerous  char- 
r;  it  is  not  merely  malum  prohibitum  but  malum  in  se; 
and  it  is  a  wrong  to  society  —  not  merely  to  Cincinnati; 
not  merely  in  cities,  but  in  every  county,  in  every  township, 
in  fact  in  every  part  of  the  state;  and  no  reason  can  be 
given  why  it  might  not  properly  be  made  punishable  by 


.  Bush,  CO  Neb.  116,  82  N.  W. 
313;  Farmers'  &  Merchants' Ins.  Co. 
v.  Dobney,  62  Neb.  213,  86  N.  W. 
1070;  Union  Central  Life  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Chowning.  86  Tex.  654,  26  S.  W. 
34 L.  R.  A.  504;  Fanners'  &  Mer- 
chants' Ins.  Co.  v.  Dobney.  189  U. 
s.  801,  23  S.  C.  Rep.  565;  Fidelity 
Mut.  Life  Ass'n  v.  Mettler,  183  U.  S. 
808,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  662. 

siHelii  valid:  Peoria,  D.  &E.Ry. 
..  Duggan,  109  I1L  537;  Perkins 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  103  Mo. 
63,  15  S.  W.  820,  11  L  R,  A.  426; 
Brigga  v.  St.  Louis,  etc-.  Py.  Co.,  Ill 
Mo.  168,  20  S.  W.  82;  Railroad  Co. 
v.  <  Irider,  91  Tenn.489,  19 &  W.  618; 
Gulf,  Cola  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ellis, 

ix.  1 9,  26  S.  W.  985.     Held  to  be 
class  legislation  and  void:  Wilder 


v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R,  Co.,  70  Mich. 
382,  38  N.  W.  289;  Schut  v.  Railway 
Co..  70  Mich.  433,  38  N.  W.  291;  Laf- 
ferty  v.  Railway  Co..  71  Mich.  35,  38 
N.  W.  600;  Grand  Rapids  Chair  Co. 
v.  Runnels,  77  Mich.  104,  43  N.  W. 
1006. 

62 Held  valid:  Wortman  v.  Klein- 
schnidt,  12  Mont.  316,  30  Pac.  280; 
Helena  Steam  Heating  &  Supply 
Co.  v.  Wells,  16  Mont  65,  40  Par.  78. 
Held  void:  Los  Angeles  Gold  Min. 
Co.  v.  Campbell,  13  Colo.  App.  1.  56 
Pac.  246;  Burleigh  Pldg.  Co  v.  Mer- 
chant Prick,  etc.  Co.,  13  Colo.  App. 
45.-).  V.)  Pac.  83. 

83  Ex  parte  Westerfield,  55  Cal. 
550;  Ex  parte  Koser,  00  id.  187, 191. 

"42  Ohio  St.  038. 


GENERAL    AND    SrECIAL    LAWS.  421 

statute  throughout  the  whole  state  as  a  criminal  offense. 
Perhaps  it  is  true  that  such  acts  may  be  a  greater  evil  in 
large  cities;  possibly  a  greater  evil  in  Cincinnati  than  in 
any  other  part  of  the  state.  But  the  same  thing  may  be 
truthfully  said  with  respect  to  many,  perhaps  a  majority,  oi 
criminal  offenses.  Take  the  crime  of  arson.  It  is  a  grievous 
evil  everywhere,  and  under  some  circumstances  a  most  atro- 
cious crime.  It  is  an  evil  alike  in  town  and  country,  but  a 
far  greater  evil  in  a  large  compact  city  like  Cincinnati  than 
in  a  small  village  or  hamlet  or  in  a  sparse  rural  district. 
But  does  this  reason,  or  any  other  with  which  it  may  be 
supplemented,  afford  any  ground,  in  view  of  our  constitu- 
tion, for  punishing  under  local  law  ?  So,  a  person  having 
possession  of  instruments  for  counterfeiting,  or  custody  of  a 
large  quantity  of  counterfeit  money,  may  be  in  a  better  po- 
sition to  carr}r  on  a  nefarious  business  successfully,  and 
therefore  more  likely  to  occasion  harm  in  a  crowded  city 
than  in  the  rural  portions  of  the  state;  but  a  general  law 
upon  the  subject,  applicable  to  the  whole  state,  has  effected 
all  that  can  be  done  by  legislation  to  remedy  the  evil."65 

65  This  opinion  is  instructive  in  would  not  be  subject  to  any  con- 
the  remarks  which  follow:  "Tothe  stitutional  objection,  however  ob- 
end  that  these  statements  may  not  jectionable  it  might  be  on  the 
mislead,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  tlie  ground  of  propriety.  And  other 
general  assembly  is  clothed  in  the  and  perhaps  more  apt  illustrations 
most  general  terms  with  legislative  of  the  principle  may  be  suggested, 
power,  and  this,  unrestrained  by  On  the  other  hand,  a  statute,  gen- 
other  provisions,  would  authorize  eral  in  form,  prohibiting  the  sale 
the  legislature  to  pass  local  penal  of  liquors  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
statutes  of  every  sort,  and  it  will  of  any  college  would  perhaps  be 
be  seen  that  there  is  no  inhibi-  regarded  as  a  general  and  therefore 
tion  against  the  passage  of  penal  valid  enactment,  in  force  through- 
statutes  which  are  local  and  even  out  the  state,  although  every 
special  in  character.  Hence  it  may  county  does  not  contain  a  college, 
be  that  a  statute  punishing  even  .  .  .  Attention  has  been  called 
with  death  any  per>on  who  should  to  the  fact  that  in  State  v.  Brew- 
break  and  enter  the  state  treasury  ster,  39  Ohio  St.  653,  658,  it  was 
in  Columbus,  Ohio,  with  intent  to  held  that  the  power  to  classify  mu 
steal,  or,  having  so  broken  and  en-  nicipal  corporations  expressly  au 
t«M-ed,  rob  the  treasurer  of  state,  thorized  by  the  constitution  is  ad- 


•!•_': 


ItAL    A.ND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


J28.  Same— Miscellaneous. —  An  act  regulating  the 
methods  and  times  of  catching  lisli  in  the  waters  of  the 
stati*  was  held  not  to  be  class  Legislation  because  it  made 
different  regulations  for  different  waters,  or  because  it  cx- 
cepted  certain  waters  from  its  operation.68  An  act  declar- 
ing what  shall  constitute  a  legal  and  sufficient  fence  and 
requiring  all  fields  and  inclosnres  to  be  inclosed  therewith 
was  held  to  be  a  law  of  a  general  nature.  It  did  not  ex- 
tend to  the  whole  state;  it  was  not  framed  to  have  a  uni- 
form operation  throughout  the  state,  and  was  therefore  held 
unconstitutional.67  An  act  prohibiting  sheep  from  running 
at  large  in  all  the  counties  of  the  state  except  one  was  held 
liable  to  the  same  objection.63  So  of  an  act  relating  to  libel 
anil  confined  to  publishers  of  newspapers.69  Tax  laws  must 
provide  a  uniform  rule.70     An  act  to  regulate  the  collection 


dressed  in  a  lar.u'e  degree  to  the 
conscience  and   judgment  of  the 

ature.  and  'that  statutory- 
provisions  with  respect  to  any  such 
class  are,  for  governmental  pur- 
poses, general  legislation,'  and  not 
in  condict  with  the  constitution. 
This  we  held  to  be  a  proper  con- 
struction of  article  13.  section  6, 
which  is  in  no  sense  in  conflict  with 
article  2,  section  26.  And  in  this 
connection  it  is  proper  to  say  that 
in  Morgan  v.  Nolte,  37  Ohio  St.  23, 
we  sustained  tin;  validity  of  a  con- 
\  iction  under  an  ordinance  of  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  passed  by  virtue 
■  tutes.  sections  1692, 
i  punishment   by 

fine  and  imprisonment  against  any 
id  who.  being  a  known  thief, 

1  !)■■  found  in  that  city;  and 

ml  statute  pun- 

ishing  the  act  of  having  possession 

of   bur;;  ars*  tools,   it  is  true,  per- 

that  the  substance  of  section 
1924,  if  adopted  in  due  form  as  an 
ordinance  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati, 


under  authority  of  sections  1692 
and  210s,  would  be  entirely  valid. 
Nor  does  this  militate  against  any- 
thing I  have  said;  for  the  constitu- 
tional provision  we  are  considering 
would  not,  under  such  circum- 
stances, have  any  application.'* 
See  Williams  v.  People,  24  N.  Y. 
405;  Budd  v.  State,  3  Humph.  483. 

6tiBittenhaus  v.  Johnston, 92  Wis. 
588,  66  N.  W.  805,  32  L.  R.  A.  380; 
Commonwealth  v.  Drain,  99  Ky. 
163,  35  S.  W.  269.  See  Peters  v. 
State,  96  Tenn.  682,  36  S.  W.  399,  33 
LE.A,  114. 

67  Darling  v.  Rodgers,  7  Kan.  592, 
Frost  v.  Cherry,  122  Pa.  St.  417,  13 
Atl.  782. 

«8  Robinson  v.  Perry,  17  Kan.  248; 
Utsey  v.  Hiott,  30  S.  C.  360,  9  S.  E. 

69  Allen  v.  Pioneer  Press,  40  Minn. 
117,  41  N.  W.  936,  12  Am.  St.  Rep. 
707,  3  L.  R.  A.  582.  See  Cobb  v. 
Bord,  40  Minn.  479.  42  N.  W.  396. 

7"  State  v.  Cumberland  &  Penn. 
R.  R.  Co.,  40  Md.  22;  State  v.  Ster- 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAW'S.  423 

of  taxes  provided  that  it  should  not  apply  to  any  taxes  the 
collection  of  which  was  regulated  by  a  local  law.  This  was 
held  not  to  make  the  act  local  or  special,  as  such  would  be 
the  effect  of  the  act  without  such  provision.71  A  statute  re- 
quiring the  assessor  to  collect  the  tax  on  personal  property 
at  the  rate  of  the  preceding  year  at  the  time  of  making  the 
assessment  in  cases  where  the  same  were  not  secured  by 
real  estate  was  held  not  to  be  a  special  law,  as  such  un- 
secured taxes  made  a  proper  class.72  An  act  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  delinquent  taxes  applied  only  to  counties 
wherein  the  amount  delinquent  on  a  certain  date  exceeded 
three  mills  on  the  dollar  of  the  assessed  valuation  of  the 
real  property  of  the  county.  This  was  held  to  be  an  arbi- 
trary classification  and  the  act  was  held  void.73  A  law  im- 
posing a  tax  on  estates  of  over  $3,000  in  counties  of  over 
150,000  inhabitants  was  held  special  and  void.74 

Local  option  laws  are  not  special  legislation,75  nor  are 
laws  which  make  different  regulations  regarding  the  liquor 
traffic  for  municipalities  of  different  population.76  A  statute 
which  forbade  the  sale  of  liquor  wTithin  one  and  one-half 
miles  of  a  national  soldiers'  home  and  within  one  mile  of 

ling,  20  Md.  502;  Tyson  v.  State.  28  ™  Rode  v.  Siebe,  119  Cal.  518,  51 

id.  587;  State  Board  of  Assessors  v.  Pac.  869,  39  L.  R.  A.  342;  Pacific 

Central  R.  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  146,  4  Postal  TeL  Cable  Co.  v.  Dalton,  119 

Atl.  578;  Hammer  v.  State,  44  N.  J.  Cal.  604,  51  Pac.  1072. 

L.   667;   State  v.  California    Min.  73  Duluth  Banking' Co.  v.  Koon, 

Co.,  15  Nev.  234;  Bright  v.  McCul-  81  Minn.  486,  84  N.  W.  6. 

lough,  Treasurer,  27  Ind.  223.     See  M  State  v.  Mann,  76  Wis.  469,  45 

Central  Iowa  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  N.  W.  51. 

Supervisors,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  "State  v.  Forkner,  94  Iowa,  1,62 

Cas.  223,  67  Iowa,  199,  25  N.  W.  128;  N.W.  683;  Lloyd  v.  Dollison,  13  Ohio 

People  ex  rel.  v.  Wallace,  70  111.  660;  C.  D.  571;  ante,  §  163. 

Chancellor  v.  Elizabeth,  64  N.  J.  L.  "State  v.  Pond,  93  Mo.  606,  6  S. 

502,45  Atl.  795;  Kniseley  v.  Cotterel,  W.  469;  Ex  parte  Swan,  96  Mo.  44, 

196Pa.St.614,46Atl.861,50L.R.A.86.  9  S.  W.  10;  State  v.  Moore,  107  Mo. 

•i  Evans  v.  Phillippi,  117  Pa.  St.  78,  16  S.  W.  937;  State  v.  Wingfield. 

226,  11  Atl.  630;  Commonwealth  v.  115   Mo.  428,  22  S.  W.  363;    State 

Lyter,  162  Pa.  St.  50,  29  Atl.  352.  v.  Staats,  54  N.  J.  L.  286,  23  Atl. 

See  Evans  v.  Witmer,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  667. 
612. 


4  2  t 


..1  M  ItAL    A\H    SPECIAL    I  A  us. 


a  state  soldi  ere'  home  was  held  not  to  be  class  Legislation.77 
a  Btatute  which  Forbade  the  granting  of  Licenses  to  sell 
Liqnor  by  county  boards  within  two  miles  of  any  city  or 
village,  bnt  excepted  counties  of  150,000  population.78 

The  Laying  out,  construction  and  repair  of  public  roads 
and  bridges  is  held  to  be  a  subject  of  a  general  nature, 
which  must  be  provided  for  by  general  laws  of  uniform 
operation  throughout  the  state,  and  laws  applicable  to  a  par- 
ticular road  or  county  are  local  and  special  and  void.79  Dif- 
ferent provisions  may  be  made  for  working  the  roads  in 
cities  and  towns  than  is  applied  to  the  rural  districts.80 

Acts  giving  special  privileges  to  union  soldiers  and  sailors 
or  exempting  them  from  burdens  or  conditions  which  apply 
to  others  are  class  legislation  and  void.81     An  act  to  protect 


"Dripps  v.  State,  52  Ohio  St  87, 
V.  S32. 

'8  Eenzinger  v.  State,  39  Neb.  653, 
53  N.  W.  194;  Shannon  v.  State,  39 
Neb.  658,  58  N.  W.  19G;  Soehl  v. 
State.  39  Neb.  659,  58  N.  W.  196; 
Rowels  v.  State,  39  Neb.  659,  58  N. 

w.  197. 

79  Commissioners  v.  State,  50  Ohio 
St.  653,  35  N.  E.  887;  State  v.  Com- 
missioners. 54  Ohio  St.  333.  43  N.  E 
Hixon  v.  Burson,  54  Ohio  St. 
470.  43  N.  E.  1000:  State  v.  Davis, 
55  Ohio  St.  15,  44  N.  E  511;  Piatt 
v.  Craig,  60  Ohio  St.  75,  63  N.  E.  594; 
Grove  v.  Leidy,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  272; 
Commissioners  v.  State,  12  Ohio  C. 
C.  200:  Maxwell  v.  Tillamook 
County.  20  Ore.  495,  26  Pac.  80a 
In  Hixon  v.  Burson,  54  Ohio  St. 
470,  483,  43  N.  E  1000,  the  court 
■  That  the  subject  of  roads 
and  highways  is  capable  of  being 
it-il  upon  by  general  laws  hav- 
ing a  uniform  operation  through- 
out the  state  is  conclusively  shown 
by  the  fact  that  such  laws   were 


I  assed  at  the  second  session  of  the 
general  assembly  after  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution,  and  remain  in 
force  in  substantially  the  same  fori  a 
to  this  day,  and  no  local  or  special 
act  on  the  subject  of  roads  was 
passed  for  many  years  thereafter." 
See  Condon  v.  Maloney,  108  Tenn. 
82,  65  S.  W.  871. 

8°McGinnisv.  Ragsdale,  116  Ga. 
245,  42  S.  E  492. 

81  State  v.  Garbroski,  111  Iowa, 
496,  82  N.  W.  959,  82  Am.  St.  Rep. 
524:  Brown  v.  Russell,  166  Mass.  14, 
43  N.  E.  1007,  32  L.  R.  A.  253;  Mat- 
ter of  Keyner,  148  N.  Y.  219,  42  N. 
I ■:.  667,  35  L.  R.  A.  447.  See  State 
v.  Miller,  66  Minn.  90,  68  N.  W.  732; 
State  v.  0"Connor,  54  N.  J.  L.  36,  22 
Atl.  1091;  State  v.  Shedroi,  75  Vt. 
277.  In  the  case  first  cited  the 
courtsays:  "The classification  here 
attempted  rests  solely  on  a  past  and 
completed  transaction,  having  no 
relation  to  the  particular  legisla- 
tion enacted.  All  citizens  are  di- 
vided into  two  classes, —  those  who 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS.  425 

manufacturers,  bottlers  and  dealers  in  ale,  porter,  lager 
beer,  soda,  mineral  water  and  other  beverages  from  the 
loss  of  their  casks,  barrels,  kegs,  bottles  and  boxes,  and 
which  gave  to  such  manufacturers  and  dealers  special  and 
peculiar  privileges  for  the  protection  and  recovery  of  their 
barrels,  bottles,  etc.,  was  held  to  be  special  legislation  and 
void.82  The  following  were  held  to  be  void  as  being  special 
or  class  legislation:  An  act  to  provide  for  free  employment 
agencies,  which  denied  the  benefit  of  the  agencies  to  em- 
ployers whose  men  were  out  on  a  strike  or  lockout;83  an  act 
relating  to  obstructions  in  streams  and  applying  only  to 
specified  counties;84  an  act  forbidding  the  peddling  of  cer- 
tain merchandise  without  a  license,  but  permitting  any  resi- 
dent of  a  town  having  a  place  of  business  therein  and  pay- 
ing taxes  to  the  amount  of  $  25  on  his  stock  in  trade,  to 
peddle  such  goods  in  his  own  town  without  a  license.85  But 
it  is  held  proper  to  make  a  distinction  between  those  ped- 
dling goods  of  their  own  production  and  those  peddling 
goods  produced  by  others.86 

The  following  were  held  not  to  be  special  or  class  legis- 
lation: An  act  giving  a  preference  to  depositors  who  are  not 
stockholders,  in  case  of  insolvency  of  bank ; 8T  an  act  to  regu- 
late commission  merchants  who  receive  farm  products  for 

served  in  the  army  and  navy  thirty-  82  Lippman  v.  People,  175  111.  101. 

five  years  ago,  and  those  who  did  51  N.  E.  872;  Horwich  v.  Walker- 

not.    True,  as  suggested,  the  vete-  Gordon  Lab.  Co.,  205  111.  497,  68  N. 

rans     came    from     no    particular  E.  938. 

class;    but  the  trouble   with  this  83  Mathews  v.  People,  202  111.  389, 

statute  is  that  it  attempts  to  make  67  N.  E.  28. 

of  them  a  class  in  legislation,  in  84  State  v.  Hammond,  66  S.  C.  219, 

the  operation  of  which  there  can  44  S.  E.  797;  State  v.  Hammond,  66 

be  no  substantial   distinction  be-  S.  C.  300,  44  S.  E.  933. 

tween  them  and  others.     In  pres-  85  State  v.  Mitchell,  97  Me.  66,  53 

ent  conditions  and  circumstances  Atl.  887. 

there  are  no  differences  between  86  Rosenbloom  v.  State,  64  Neb. 

them  in  their  relation  to  society  342,  89  N.  W.  1053. 

and  the  administration  of  the  law,  87  Murphy  v.   Pacific  Bank,   130 

and  other  citizens  of  the  state."  CaL  542,  62  Pac.  1059. 

p.  500. 


\.!<\  Q]  \i  1;  \i.    \M>   SPECIAL    LAWS. 

sale  OD  commission  and  which  excepts  those  dealing  in 
grain,  live  stock  and  dressed  meat;88  an  act  giving  a  lien 
for  supplies  furnished  to  transportation,  mining  and  manu- 
facturing companies;89  an  act  making  it  a  penal  offense  to 

take  a  note  for  a  patent  right  unless  the  note  states  on  its 
face  that  it  was  given  for  such  consideration;90  an  act  for- 
bidding bets  on  horse  races  unless  made  in  an  inclosed 
track  where  the  race  is  run;91  an  act  in  reference  to  "blind 
and  applying  only  to  prohibition  districts;92  an  act 
sing  a  tax  on  bicycles  in  certain  counties;93  an  act  to 
regulate  the  practice  of  barbering,  which  in  effect  made 
three  classes  of  barbers:  (1)  those  in  cities  of  the  first,  second 
and  third  classes,  (2)  those  in  other  cities  and  in  incorporated 
towns,  and  (3)  all  other  barbers,  and  which  made  different 
regulations  for  each  class.1'4 

The  question  of  special  or  class  legislation  is  sometimes 
raised  in  connection  with  anti-trust  laws,  union  label  acts, 
inheritance  tax  laws  and  medical  practice  acts,  and  cases 
on. these  different  laws  are  referred  to  in  the  margin;95  and 

88  Lasher  v.  People,  183  111.  226,  199;  State  v.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  150  Mo. 
55  N.  E.  663,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  103,  113,  51  s.  W.  413;  State  v.  Schlitz 
-17  L.  R.  A.  802.  Brewing  Co.,  104  Tenn.  715.  5!)  8. 

89  Virginia  Development  Co.  v.  W.  1033,  78  Am.  St.  Rep  941;  Con- 
Crozer  Iron  Co.,  90  Va.  126,  17  S.  E.  nolly  v.  Union  Sewer  Pipe  Co.,  184 

06,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  893.  U.  S.  540,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  431,  46  L. 

9°  State  v.  Cook,  107  Tenn.  499,  Ed.  679;  Union  Sewer  Pipe  Co.  v. 

W.  720.  Connolly,  9!)  Fed.  354;  State  v.  Con- 

91  Debardelaben  v.  State,  99  Tenn.  tinental  Tobacco  Co.,  177  Mo.  1. 

649, 42  S.  W.  684  Union     label     act?.—  State     v. 

te  v.  Stoffels,  89  Minn.  205,  Bishop,  128  Mo.  373,  31  S.  W.  9,  4!) 

.  \V.  675.  Am.  St.  Rep.  569," 29  L.  R.  A.  200; 

M  Ellis  v.  Frazier,  38  Ore.  462,  63  Schmalz  v.  Wooley,  56  N.  J.  Eq.  64<», 

:;(.i  At  1.  589;  ( iommonwealth  v.  Nor- 

e  v.  Sharpies,  31  Wash.  101,  ton,  16  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  423. 

7 1  Pa<  Trih  eritance  tax  lawn. — In  re  "NV  i  1  - 

't-lrnst     /fi»'s.-Brown      v.  merdinj;,  117  Cal.  281,  49  Pac.  181; 

umacy  Co.,  115  Ga.  429,  Estate  of  Stanford,  126  Cal.  112,  54 

il  S.  E.  553,  90  Am.  St.   Rep.   126;  Pac.  259,58  Pac.  462;  In  re  Inherit- 

v.  Butler  Street  Foundry  &  ance  Tax.  28  Colo.  492,  48  Pac.  535; 

.   ■    66  X.  K.  349;  Drew  v.  TitTt,  7!)  Minn.   175,  81  N. 

.   ■  . .  iley,  65  Kan.  240,  00  Pac  W.  839.  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  446,  47  L.  R. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


42  r 


some  miscellaneous  cases  are  added  without  giving  the  par- 
ticular points  decided.96 

§229.  Amendatory  and  curative  acts. —  Existing  gen- 
eral laws  required  to  have  a  uniform  operation  cannot  be 


A.  525;  State  v.  Henderson,  160  Mo. 
190,  60  S.  W.  1093;  State  v.  Ferris, 
53  Ohio  St.  314,  41  N.  E.  579;  State 
v.  Allston,  94  Tenn.  674,  30  S.  W. 
750,  28  L.  R.  A.  178;  State  v.  Clark, 
30  Wash.  439,  71  Pac.  20;  Magown 
v.  111.  Trust  &  Sav.  Bank,  170  U.  S. 
283,  18  S.  C.  594,  42  L.  Ed.  1037. 

Medical  practice  acts. —  Ex  parte 
McNulty,  77  CaL  164,  19  Pac.  237, 

II  Am.  St.  Rep.  257;  Parks  v.  State, 
159  Ind.  211,  64  N.  E.  862;  State  v. 
Bair,112  Iowa,466, 84  N.  W.  532, 51  L. 
R.  A.  776;  Iowa  Electric  Med.  Col- 
lege Ass'n  v.  Board  of  Med.  Exami- 
ners, 87  Iowa,  659,  55  N.  W.  24, 20  L. 
R.  A.  355;  Craig  v.  Medical  Exami- 
ners, 12  Mont.  203,  29  Pac.  532; 
State  v.  Hinman,  65  N.  H.  103,  18 
Atl.  194;  State  v.  Pennoyer,  65  N. 
H.  113,  18  Atl.  878,  5  L.  R.  A.  709; 
State  v.  Call,  121  N.  C.  643,  28  S.  E. 
517;  State  v.  Randolph,  23  Ore.  74, 
81  Pac.  201,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  655; 
People  v.  Hasbrouck,  11  Utah,  291, 
39  Pac.  918;  State  v.  Carey,  4  Wash. 
424,  30  Pac.  729;  State  v.  Currens, 

III  Wis.  431,  87  N.'W.  551;  Dent  v. 
West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  114,  9  S.C. 
Rep.  231,  32  L.  Ed.  623;  Hawker  v. 
New  York,  170  U.  S.  1S9,  18  S.  C. 
Rep.  573,  42  L.  Ed.  1002;  Reetz  v. 
Michigan,  188  U.  S.  505,  23  S.  C. 
Rep.  390. 

sliActs  held  to  be  special  or  class 
legislation. —  Farrell  v.  Board  of 
Trustees,  85  Cal.  408,  24  Pac.  868; 
Eaton  v.  Brown,  97  Cal.  371,  31  Pac. 
250,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  225, 17  L.  R.  A. 
697;  Harlingau   v.  Doyle,  134  Cal. 


53,  66  Pac.  44;  In  re  Consolidation 
of  School  Districts,  23  Colo.  499,  48 
Pac.  647;  Bailey  v.  People,  190  111. 
28,  60  N.  E.  98.  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  116; 
Allardt  v.  People,  197  111.  501,  64  N. 
E.  533;  Gilson  v.  Commissioners. 
128  Ind.  65,  27  N.  E.  235, 11  L.  R.  A. 
835;  State  v.  Santee,  111  Iowa,  1,  82 
N.  W.  445,  82  Am.  St.  Rep.  489,  53 
L.  R.  A.  763;  Brown  v.  Milliken,  42 
Kan.  769,23  Pac.  167;  Roberts  v. 
Missouri,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  43  Kan.  102, 
22  Pac.  1006;  Shawnee  County 
Com'rs  v.  State,  49  Kan.  486,  31 
Pac.  149;  State  v.  Mitchell,  97  Me. 

66,  53  Atl.  887;  People  v.  Berrien 
Circ.  Judge,  124  Mich.  664,  83  N. 
W.  594,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  352;  State 
v.  Wagener,  69  Minn.  206,  72  N.  W. 

67,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  565;  State  v. 
Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375,  55  S.  W. 
627,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  776;  State  v. 
Bradshaw,  56  N.  J.  L.  1, 27  Atl.  939; 
Cox  v.  Truitt,  57  N.  J.  L.  635,  31 
Atl.  168;  State  v.  Cramer,  58  N.  J. 
L.  278,  33  Atl.  201;  Morris  v.  Ocean 
Tp.,  61  N.  J.  L.  12, 38  Atl.  760:  Grey 
v.  Newark  Plank  Road  Co.,  65  N.  J. 
L.  51,  46  Atl.  606;  Gilhooley  v. 
Elizabeth,  66  N.  J.  L.  484,  49  Atl. 
1106;  Coxe  v.  State,144  N.  Y.  396,  39 
N.  E.  400;  People  v.  Orange  County 
Road  Co..  175  N.  Y.  84,  67  N.  E.  129; 
State  v.  Bargus,  53  Ohio  St.  94,  41 
N.  E.  245,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  628; 
Guthrie  Daily  Leader  v.  Cameron, 
3  Okl.  077,  41  Pac.  635;  Clark's  Es- 
tate, 195  Pa.  St.  520,  46  Atl.  127,  48 
L.  R.  A.  587;  Strine  v.  Foltz,  1  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  490;   Dean  v.   Spartenburg 


,.l   \  I   RAL     AM>    SPECIAL     LAWS. 


amended  so  as  to  interrupt  their  uniform  operation.97 
Though  Bpeoial  acts  may  be  repealed,  parts  of  a  special  or 
local  law  may  not  be  repealed  whore  the  effeot  is  to  in- 


i.uinty,  59  S.  C.  110.  37  S.  E.  236; 
Stratton  Claimants  v.  Morris  Claim- 
ants, 89  Tenn.  407,  16  s.  W.  446; 
Weaver  v.  Davidson  County,  104 
Tenn.  816,  59  S.  W.  1105;  Janesville 
v.  Carpenter,  77  Wia  288,  -it'.'  N.  W. 

>0  Am  St.  Rep.  128,  8  L,  R.  A. 

State  v.  Bell,  91  Wis.  271,61 

N.  W.  845;  State  v.   Benzenberg, 

101  Wis.  172,  70  N.  W.  345;  Shaver 

v.  Penn.  Co..  71   Fed.  931;   Holt  v. 

Mayor,   111    Ala.    869,    19   So.    785; 

Conliti  v.  Supervisors,  114  Cal.  404, 

46  P  L.  R.  A.  752;   Met- 

calf  v.  State,  19  Ohio  St.  58G,  31  N. 

E.  1070;  German  Am.  Invest.  Co.  v. 

Youngstown,  63  Fed.  4.52. 

Acta  held  not   to  be  special  or 

Urn. —  Ex  parte  Will- 

.  87  <  al.  78,  24  Par.  002,  25  Pac. 

McDonald  v.  Conniff,  99  (al. 

84  Pac.  71;  Kings  County  v. 
Johnson,  104  Cal.  198,  37  Pac.  870; 
Miles  v.  Woodward,  115  Cal.  308.  46 
Pac.  1076;  Tulare  County  v.  May, 
118  Cal.  803,  50  Tac.  427;  Solano 
County  v.  McCudden,  120  Cal.  648, 
53  I'.u:  213;  People  v.  Lodi  High 
School  Dist.,  124  Cal.  094,  57  Pac. 
660;  Ira-ley  v.  Phelan.  120  Cal.  383; 
58  Pac.  923;  Peoplev.  King,  127  Cal. 
:  Carpenter  v.  Furrey, 
1.  665,61  Pac.  369;  Escondido 
Eigfa    School    Dijt.    v.    Escondido 

n  try,  130  CaL  128,  62  Pac.  401; 

-  of  Yturburen,  134  Cal.  507, 
66  Pac  729:  Jackson  v.  Baehr,  138 
CaL  200,  71  Pac.  107;   Napa  State 


Hospital  v.  Yuba  County,  138  Cal. 
878,  n  Pac,  450;  state  v.  Jackson- 
ville Terminal  Co.,  41  Fla.  ;;03,  27 
So.  221;  Columbus  So.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Wright,  89  da.  574,  15  S.  E.  898; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wright,  97  (la. 
114,  25  S.  E.  249, 35  L.  R.  A.  497 ;  Na- 
tional Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Augusta 
Cotton  &  Compress  Co.,  104  Ga.  108 
30  S.  E.  888;  Union  Sav.  Bank  &  T. 
Co.  v.  Dottenheim,  107  Ga.  606,  84 
S.  E.  217;  Wunderle  v.  Wunderle, 

144  111.  40,  33  N.  E.  195,  19  L.  R  A. 
84;  Schultz  v.  Schultz,  144  111.  290, 
33  N.  E.  201,  19  L.  R.  A.  90;  People 
v.  Board  of  Sup'rs.  185  111.  288,  56 
N.  E.  1044;  Arms  v.  Ayer,  192  III. 
601,  61  N.  E.  851,  85  Am.  St.  Rep. 
857;  Downey  v.  People,  205  111.  230, 
68  N.  E.  807;  Taggert  v.  Claypool, 

145  Ind.  590,  44  N.  E.  18,  32  L.  R.  A. 
586;  State  v.  Gouss,  85  Iowa,  21.  5t 
N.  W.  1147;  Burk  v.  Putnam,  118 
Iowa,  232,  84  N.  W.  1053.  86  Am.  St. 
Rep.872;Statev.Haun,7Kan.App. 
509,  54  Pac.  130;  Commonwealth  v. 
Taylor,  101  Ky.  325,  41  S.  W.  11; 
Louisville  &  J.  Ferry  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth,  101  Ky.  720,  47  S.  W. 
877;  Hall  v.  Ihirlingame,  8S  Mich. 

50  N.  W,  289;  People  v.  Smith, 
108  Mich.  527.  00  N.  W.  382,  02  Am. 
St.  Rep.  715,  82  L.  R.  A.  853;  People 
v.  Japinga,  115  Mich.  222,  73  N.  W. 
Ill;  State  v.  Sheriff,  48  Minn.  286, 
71  X.  W.  112,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  050; 
Statu  v.  Corbett,  57  Minn.  845,  59 
N.  W.  817,  24  L,  R  A.  498;  State  v. 


ex  rel.  Peck  v.  Riordan, 

•    ■■■  ex  rel.  Keenan 

v.  Supervisors,  25  id  339;  State  ex 


rel.  Walsh  v.  Dousman,  28  id.  541; 
Zeigler  v.  Gaddis,  44  N.  J.  L.  363. 


GENERAL    AND    SPECIAL    LAWS. 


429' 


tensify  the  special  character  of  the  act.98  Amendments  crn- 
not  be  made  to  particular  charters  where  special  acts  of  in- 
corporation are  prohibited."     Nor  can  special  curative  acts 


McMahon,  62  Minn.  1 10,  64  N.  W.  92; 
Lommen  v.  Minneapolis  Gas  Light 
Co.,  65%Minn.  196,  68  N.  W.  53,  CO 
Am.  St.  Rep.  450,  33  L.  R.  A.  437; 
Cameron  v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
63  Minn.  384,  65  N.  W.  652;  State  v. 
Wise,  70  Minn.  99,  72  N.  W.  843; 
Anderson  v.  Seymour,  70  Minn.  358, 
73  N.  W.  171;  State  v.  Wagener,  77 
Minn.  483,  80  N.  W.  633;  State  v. 
Sherod,  80  Minn.  446.  83  N.  W.  417, 
81  Am.  St.  Rep.  268,  50  L.  R.  A.  660; 
State  v.  Johnson,  86  Minn.  121,  90 
N.  W.  161,  1133;  Vicksburg  v.  Sun 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  72  Miss.  67,  16  So.  267; 
Hoole  v.  Dorrah,  75  Miss.  257,  22  So. 
829;  State  v.  Hughes,  104  Mo.  459, 
16  S.  W.  489;  State  v.  Orriok,  106 
Mo.  Ill,  17  S.  W.  176,  329;  State  v. 
Field,  119  Mo.  593,  24  S.  W.  752; 
State  v.  Yancy,  123  Mo.  391.  27  S. 
W.  380;  State  v.  Gritzner,  134  Mo. 
512,  36  S.  W.  39;  Daggs  v.  Orient 
Ins.  Co.,  136  Mo.  382.  38  S.  W.  85,  58 
Am.  St.  Rep.  638.  35  L.  R.  A.  227; 
State  v.  Lee,  137  Mo.  143,  38  S.  W. 
583;  State  v.  Durrah.  152  Mo.  522.  54 
S.  W.  226;  Ham  man  v.  Central  Coal 
&  C.  Co.,  156  Mo.  232,  56  S.  W.  1091; 
State  v.  Thompson,  160  Mo.  333,  60 
S.  W.  1077,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  468; 
State  v.  Bixman,  162  Mo.  1,  62  S.  W. 
828;  State  v.  Harney,  168  Mo.  167, 


67  S.  W.  620;  State  v.  Gregory,  170 
Mo.  598, 71 S.  W.  170 ;  Elting  v.  Hick- 
man, 172  Mo.  237,  72  S.  W.  700;  Sea- 
board National  Bank  v.  Woeston, 
176  Mo.  49,  75  S.  W.  464;  In  re  De- 
war's  Estate,  10  Mont.  426,  25  Pac. 
1026;  King  v.  Pony  Gold  Min.  Co., 
24  Mont.  470,  62  Pac.  783;  State  v. 
Woodman,  26  Mont.  348,  67  Pac. 
1118;  Lancaster  County  v.  Trimble. 
33  Neb.  121,  49  N.  W.  938;  State  v. 
Robinson,  35  Neb.  401,  53  N.  W.  213; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  39  Neb. 
679,  58  N.  W.  226,  42  Am.  St.  Reu. 
613;  Bishop  v.  Middleton,  43  Neb. 
10,  61  N.  W.  129,  26  L.  R.  A.  445; 
State  v.  Farmers'  &  M.  Ins.  Co.,  59 
Neb.  1, 80  N.  W.  52;  State  v.  Aitken. 
62  Neb.  428,  87  N.  W.  153;  State  v. 
Donovan,  20  Nev.  75,  15  Pac.  783: 
State  v.  Beck,  25  Nev.  68,  56  Par. 
1008;  State  v.  Jersey  City,  58  N.  J. 
L.  262, 33  Atl.  740;  State  v.  Cline,  62 
N.  J.  L.  489,  41  Atl.  690;  Miller  v. 
Camden,  64  N.  J.  L.  201,  44  Atl.  882; 
Reilly  v.  Gray,  77  Hun,  402.  28  N. 
Y.  S.  811;  People  v.  Warden,  81  Hun, 
434,  30  N.  Y.  S.  1095;  State  v.  Moore, 
104  N.  C.  714.  10  S.  E.  143,  17  Am. 
St.  Rep.  696;  Minneapolis  &  North- 
ern Elevator  Co.  v.  Traill  County, 
9  N.  D.  213,  82  N.  W.  727, 50  L  R.  A. 
266;  Oregon  City  v.  Moore,  30  Ore. 


98  Blankenburg  v.  Block,  200  Pa. 
St.  629,  50  Atl.  198. 

»9  Ex  parte  Pritz,  9  Iowa,  30;  Da- 
vis v.  Woolnough,  9  Iowa,  104;  Mc- 
Gregor v.  Baylies,  19  Iowa,  43;  Von 
Phul  v.  Hammer,  29  Iowa,  222. 
Put  see  Brown  v.  Denver,  7  Colo. 
305;    Hodges  v.  Baltimore  Union 


Pass.  R  R.  Co.,  58  Md.  603;  May- 
field  v.  Elmore.  100  Ky.  417,  38  S. 
W.  849;  Farnsworth  v.  Lime  Rock 
R.  R.  Co.,  83  Me.  440.  22  Atl.  373; 
Black  River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Hoi  way,  87 
Wis.  584,  59  N.  W.  126;  De  Hay  v. 
Berkeley  County  Com'rs,  66  S.  C. 
227. 


GENKHAL    AM>    BP]  OIAL    I  A  \\  s. 


be  passed  to  give  effect  to  proceedings  defective  and  void. 
because  taken  in  the  absenoe  of  necessary  statutory  author- 
ity,1 or  because  not  taken  in  pursuanoe  of  statutes  in  force.2 


816,  46  Pac  1017.  IT  Pac  861;  Com- 

monwealth  v.  Sellers,  180  Pa.  St 

-  Ail.  542;   In  re  Registration 

mpbell,  197  Pa  st.  r,si.47  Atl. 
New  Brighton  v.  Biddell,  201 
Pa.  St.  98,  no  Atl.  989;  Silkman  v. 
Scranton,  1  Pa,  Cc  Ct  329;  Keim 
v.  Devitt,  8  Pa  Co.  Ct  250;  State  v. 
Duggan,  15  R.  I.  403.6  Atl.  787:  Bon 
Homme  County  v.  Berndt,  13  S.  D. 
BS  N.  W.  833,  50  L.  K.  A.  351; 
Bon  Homme  Co.  v.  Berndt,  15S.D. 
90  N.  W.  147;  State  v.  Frost,  103 
Tenn  -   W.  986;  Peterson  v. 

104  Tenn.   127.  50  S.  W.  834; 
11  v.  Alsup,  107  Tenn.  257,  04  S. 
W.  193;  Flourney  v.  Lewis.  2  Tenn. 
Ca&45    '  v.  Troy,  1 1  Wash.  435, 

:  9  lac.  974:  Lewis  County  v.  Gor- 
don, 20  Wash.  80,  54  Pac.  779:  Mo- 
Daniels  v.  Connelly.  30  Wash.  549, 71 
Pac.  37;  McEldowney  v.  Wyatt,  44 


\V.  Va  711.  80  S.  EL  289,  45  L.  R.  A. 
009;  Blue  Jacket  Con.  Copper  Co.  v. 
Soh<  rr.  50  W.  Va.  588,  40  S.  K.  51  1; 
State  v.  Anderson,  90  Wis.  550,  88 
N.  W.  710:  Roane  Iron  Co.  v.  Wis. 
Trust  ( '()..  99  Wis.  273.  74  N.  W.  818, 
67  Am.  St.  Rep.  856;  Reals  v  Smith, 
s  Wyo.  159,  50  Pac.  690;  McKean  v. 
Archer,  52  Fed.  791;  Brattleboro 
Sav.  Bank  v.  Hardy  Tp.,  98  Fed  52 1 : 
Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Cox,  102  Fed.  825,  42  C.  C.  A. 
654;  Peacock  v.  Pratt  (C.  C.  A.),  121 
Fed.  772. 

'Independent  School  District  v. 
Burlinuton,  60  Iowa,  500;  Stange 
v.Dubuque,  62  id.  303.  See  State 
v.  Squires,  26  id.  340. 

-  Mason  v.  Spencer,  35  Kan.  512; 
City  of  Emporia  v.  Norton,  13  id. 
569. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AMENDATORY  ACTS  AND  ACTS  TO  REVIVE,  ADOPT  OR  EX- 
TEND THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OTHER  ACTS. 

§  230  (131).  The  constitutional  requirement  as  to 
amendments  and  its  purpose. —  The  requirement  is  substan- 
tially the  same  in  the  constitutions  of  many  states  —  that 
no  law  shall  be  revived  or  revised  or  amended  by  reference 
to  the  title  only;  but  the  law  revived  or  revised,  or  the  sec- 
tion amended,  shall  be  re-enacted  or  inserted  at  length  in 
the  new  act.  The  provision  is  mandatory.1  This  require- 
ment was  intended  mainly  to  prevent  improvident  legisla- 
tion.2 By  a  prevalent  form  of  amendatory  legislation  the 
amendatory  act  itself  was  unintelligible;  words  were 
stricken  out  or  inserted,  additions  or  substitutions  made  by 
mere  reference  to  the  place  in  the  old  law  where  the  change 
should  be  introduced.  It  required  an  examination  of  the 
former  act  and  a  comparison  with  it  of  the  new  act  to  under- 
stand the  change.  Much  confusion  and  uncertainty  ensued 
from  this  practice.  After  repeated  amendments  in  this 
manner  there  was  much  difficulty  in  determining  the  state 
of  the  law.  The  requirement  was  intended  to  remedy  this 
evil  by  requiring  the  legislature  changing  the  law  to  state 
it  entire  in  its  amended  form:  the  whole  act,  when  revived 
or  revised,  or  a  whole  section  amended.3 

iTuskaloosa  Bridge  Co.  v.  Olm-  484,  497:  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  151, 

stead,  41   Ala.  9:  Walker  v.  Cald-  159;  Colwell  v.  Chamberlin,  43  N. 

well,  4  La.  Ann.  297.     See  Lehman  J.  L.  387;  Draper  v.  Falley,  33  Ind. 

v.  McBride,  15  Ohio  St.  573.  465,    469;    Blakemore  v.   Dolan,  50 

2  Lehman  v.  McBride,  15  Ohio  St.  Ind.  194,  203;  State  v.  Read,  49  La. 

573,  603.  Ann.    1535.  22  So.  761;  Warren  v. 

3Timm  v.  Harrison,  109  111.  593;  Crosby,  24  Ore.  558,   34  Pac.   661; 

Sovereign    v.    State,    7   Neb.   409;  Snyder  v.  Compton,  87  Tex.  374,  28 

Mayor,  etc.  v.  Trigg,  46  Mo.  288,  S.  W.  1061;  Fletcher  v.  Prather,  102 

290;  People  v.  Mahaney,  13  Mich.  Cal.  413,  36  Pac.  658. 


AMi    Nl>.\  It'ia       At    IS. 


.  Requisites  of  amendatory  act* — In  tho 
amendment  or  revision  of  a  statute  two  things  are  required : 
First,  the  title  of  the  act  amended  or  revised  should  be  re- 
ferred  to;  and  secondly,  the  act  as  revised,  or  section  as 
amended,  should  be  set  forth  and  published  at  full  length.4 
A  failure  to  set  out  the  act  or  section  as  amended  renders 
the  amendatory  act  void.5  It  is  not  necessary  in  an  amend- 
atory statute  to  set  forth  the  old  actor  section,6  but  only  to 
re-enact  complete  the  amended  section.  It  is  intended  that 
the  law  in  force  after  the  amendment  shall  be  formulated 
and  stated  as  it  reads  entire,  and  not  in  shreds.7  The  su- 
preme  court  of  Louisiana  say: 8  "It  was  intended  that  each 
amendment,  and  each  revisal,  should  speak  for  itself;  should 
stand  independent  and  apart  from  the  act  revised  or  the  sec- 


*  Feibleman   v.  State  ex  rel.,  98 

Ind.  521;  Tuskaloosa  Bridge  Co.  v. 

Olmstead,  .41    Ala.    9;    Rogers   v. 

State.  6  I  ml.  31;  Armstrong  v.  Ber- 

reman,    13   id.    422;    Sovereign    v. 

State.  7  Neb.   409,  413;  Walker  v. 

Caldwell  4   La.   Ann.   297;    Kohn 

v.    Car  roll  ton,    10    La.    Ann.    719; 

Jones  v.   Commissioner.  21  Mich. 

State  v.  Algood,  81  Tenn.  163, 

10  S.  W.  310;  O'Mara  v.  Wabash  R, 

R  Co.  150  Ind.  648,  50  N.  E.  821; 

State  v.  Muriin.  137  Mo.  297,  38  S. 

W.  923;  Purvis  v.  Ross,  158  Pa.  St. 

7   Atl.  8s2;  Sniyers  v.  Beam, 

Pa.   St.   57,  27   Atl.   884     See 

Comstook  v.  Judge,  39  Mich.  195; 

Earle  v.    Board   of  Education,  55 

CaL  489,  492,  4913. 

5  Jutlson  v.  Bessemer,  87  Ala.  240, 

267;  Bates  v.  State,  118  Ala. 

102,  24  So.  448;  Street  v.  Hooten, 

181    Ala.  492,  32  So.  580;  State  v. 

Guiney,  55  Kan.  532,  40  Pae.  926; 

In  re  House  Roll  284,  31    Neb.  505, 

W.  27."> ;  Douglas  County  v. 

\\;iy>-.  52  Neb.  191,  71   N.  W.  1028; 

rly  v.  State,  03  Neb.  83,  88  N. 


W.  171;  State  v.  Ilaverly,  G3  Neb. 
ST.  88  N.  W.  172;  Stale  v.  Trenton, 
53  N.  J.  L.  nor,.  22  Atl.  781;  State  v. 
Beddo,  22  Utah.  432,  63  Pao.  96; 
Copelaml  v.  Pirie.  26  Wash.  481,  67 
Pac.  227,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  769;  In  re 
Bue!o\v.  98  Fed.  86. 

6  Wilkinson  v.  Ketter,  59  Ala. 
300;  Montgomery  v.  State,  107  Ala. 
372  18  So.  157;  Lewis  v.  State,  123 
Ala.  84.  20  So.  516. 

7  Greencastle,  etc.  Co.  v.  State  ex 
rel.,  28  Ind.  382;  Draper  v.  Falley, 
33  id.  465:  Blakemore  v.  Dolan,  50 
id.  194;  Rogers  v.  State,  6  id.  81; 
People  v.  McCallum,  1  Neb.  182; 
Arnoult  v.  New  Orleans,  11  La. 
Ann.  54;  Jones  v.  Commissioner, 21 
Mich.  236;  City  of  Portland  v. 
Stock,  2  Ore.  69;  Colwell  v.  Cham- 
berlin,  43  N.  J.  L.  387;  Lehman  v. 
MoBride,  15  Ohio  St.  573,  602; 
Mayor  v.  Trigg,  46  Mo.  288;  State 
v.  Powder  Mfg.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L  75, 
11  Atl.  127. 

8  Arnoult  v.  New  Orleans,  11  La. 
Ann.  54. 


AMENDATORY    ACTS.  433 

tion  amended.  It  was  therefore  provided  that,  in  such  cases, 
if  the  object  was  to  revise  an  act,  it  should  be  re-enacted 
throughout;  and  if  the  object  was  to  amend  an  act,  then  the 
section  amended  should  be  re-enacted  and  published."  A  re- 
cital of  the  section  amended  as  it  stood  prior  to  the  amend- 
ment will  not  vitiate  the  amendatory  statute;  such  recital 
will  be  treated  as  surplusage.9  If  incorrectly  recited  it  will 
not  affect  the  validity7  of  the  amendatory  act.10  It  is  not 
required  that  the  amendatory  act  state  that  certain  words 
of  a  specific  section  are  stricken  out  and  others  inserted,  and 
then  set  out  in  full  the  section  as  amended;  it  is  sufficient 
if  the  section  as  amended  be  set  out  in  full.11  Sections  of 
the  same  act  not  amended  need  not  be  set  out.12  When  an  ' 
act  is  amended  by  adding  new  sections  thereto,  no  part  of 
the  act  amended  need  be  set  forth.13  So  where  a  section 
consisted  of  numerous  subdivisions  numbered  consecutively, 
it  was  held  that  the  section  could  be  amended  by  adding 
new  subdivisions  without  setting  forth  the  entire  section.14 
But  where  a  section  not  so  divided  is  amended  by  adding 
certain  words  or  provisions,  the  whole  section  as  amended 
must  be  set  forth.15 

If  the  reference  to  the  act  to  be  amended  in  the  title  and 
body  of  the  amendatory  act  is  sufficient  for  identification, 
it  is  all  that  is  required,  and  slight  errors  will  be  disregarded.16 

9  Draper  v.  Falley,  33  Ind.  465.  21  Pac.  1011;  State  v.  Thurston,  92 

"•People  v.  McCallum,  1  Neb.  182;  Mo.  325,  4  S.  W.  930.  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 

School  Directors  v.  School  Direct-  720;  State  v.  Hendrix,  98  Mo.  374, 

ors,  73  111.  249.  11  S.  W.  728;  In  re  White,  33  Neb. 

"  Morrison  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  R.  R  812,  51  N.  W.  287;  Matter  of  South 

Co.,  96  Mo.  602.  Market  St.,  76  Hun,  85,  27  N.  Y.  S. 

i-' State  v.  Thurston,  92  Mo.  325,  843;  Berry  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  R. 

4  S.  W.  930,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  720;  R  Co.,  52  Kan.  759,  34  Pac.  805,  39 

State  v.  Hendrix,  98  Mo.  374,  11  S.  Am.  St.  Rep.  371. 

W.  728;  Montclair   v.  New  York,  14  Beatrice  v.  Masslich,  108  Fed. 

etc.   Ry.  Co..  45  N.  J.  Eq.  436,  18  743,  47  C.  C.  A.  657.    See  post,  §  236. 

Atl.  242.  15  Barrett's   Appeal,  116  Pa.  St. 

is  Hell  man  v.  Shoulters,  114  Cal.  486,  10  Atl.  36. 

136,  45  Pac.  1068;  Edwards  v.  Den-  i«  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala.  28,  19 

ver  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Colo.  59,  So.  857;  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala. 
28 


I'.  1  AMI   M'  \  K>B1       A (    IS. 

The  title  of  amendatory  arts  has  been  treated  in  a  former 

chapter." 

12,  (  onstltutional  proTisions  in  Georgia,  Nebraska 

and  Tennessee. —  The  constitutional  provisions  in  these 
states  differ  from  the  typical  form.  That  of  Georgia  is  as 
follows:  "No  law  or  section  of  the  code  shall  be  amended 
or  repealed  by  mere  reference  to  its  title,  or  to  the  number 
of  the  section  of  the  code,  but  the  amending  or  repealing 
act  shall  distinctly  describe  the  law  to  be  amended  or  re- 
pealed, as  well  as  the  ;t!t. 'rations  to  be  made."  18  The  cases 
.  to  hold  that  it  is  sufficient  if  the  amendatory  act  gives 
the  title  of  the  act  or  section  of  the  code  to  be  amended,  and 
sets  forth  in  full  the  section  as  amended.10  In  Nebraska  the 
amendatory  act  must  not  only  set  forth  the  act  or  section 
as  amended,  but  must  contain  an  express  repeal  of  the  old 
act  or  section,  and  the  absence  of  such  express  repeal  ren- 
ders the  amendatory  act  void.20  The  provision  in  Tennessee 
is  that  "all  acts  which  repeal,  revive  or  amend  former  laws 
shall  recite  in  their  caption  or  otherwise  the  title  or  sub- 
stance of  the  law  repealed,  revived  or  amended."21  A  re- 
cital of  either  the  title  or  substance  is  sufficient,  and  an  act 
to  amend  a  specified  section  of  the  code  complies  with  the 
constitution."     An  act  was  entitled  "  An  act  to  amend  -the 

66,19  So.   901;  Fenton  v.  Yule,  27  W.   957;    Grand    Island   &    Wyo. 
13  N.    W.   1140;  State  v.  Cent.   R   R  Co.    v.  Swinbank,  51 
Cross,  44  W.  Va.  315,  29  S.  E.  527;  Neb.  531,  71   N.  W.  48;  Horkey  v. 
state  v.  Woolard,  119  N.  C.  779,  25  Kendall,  5:3  Neb.  522,  73  N.  W.  953, 
719.  68   Am.  St  Rep.  623;  Reynolds  v. 
I37etseq.  State,  53  Neb.  761,  74  N.  W.  330; 
i  7  art.  3,  sec.  7,  pt.  17.  Reid  v.  Pauska,  50  Neb.  195,  78  N. 
i9Ryle    v.    Wilkinson     County,  W.  534.      The  constitutional   pro- 
it    Ga  173,  30  S.  E.  934;  Puckett  vision  is  as  follows:    "And  no  law 
v.  Young,  112  Ga.  578,  37  S.  E.  880;  shall  be  amended  unless  the  new 
v.  Black,  85  Ga.  41:3,  11    S.  E.  act  contain  the  section  or  sections 
■  Gilbert  v.  Georgia  R  R.  &  B.  so  amended  and  the  section  or  seo- 
„  104  Ga.  412,  80  S.  &  678.  tions   so   amended    shall    be    re- 
ancaster  County  \.  Hoagland,  pealed."  Const.  1875,  art.  3,  sec.  11. 

rath  Omaha   v.  Tax-  21  Art.  2,  sec.  17. 

re'  League,  42   Neb.  671,  00  N.  '•"Ransome  v.  State,  91  Tenn.716, 


AMENDATORY    ACTS. 


435 


criminal  laws  of  this  state."  The  body  of  the  act  did  not 
purport  to  amend  any  particular  part  or  section,  but  did  in 
fact  accomplish  such  amendment.  The  act  was  held  void 
because  it  did  not  give  either  the  title  or  substance  of  the 
law  amended.23 

§233.  Amendment  of  repealed  or  void  act  or  section.— 
There  is  a  conflict  of  authority  as  to  whether  a  section  which 
has  been  repealed  can  be  amended.  The  question  usually 
arises  where  a  section  of  an  act  is  amended  "to  read  as  fol- 
lows "  and  is  then  again  amended  in  the  same  manner  and  by 
the  same  description,  ignoring  the  first  amendment.  Most 
of  the  older  and  some  of  the  more  recent  cases  hold  that 
such  an  amendatory  act,  or  the  amendment  of  a  repealed 
section,  is  a  nullity.24  A  repeal  by  implication  is  said  to 
stand  upon  the  same  footing  in  this  respect  as  a  direct  or 
express  repeal.25     "  While  there  is  some  conflict  of  opinion 


20  S.  W.  310;  State  v.  Runnels,  92 
Tenn.  320,  21  S.  W.  665:  State  v. 
Brown,  103  Tenn.  449, 53  S.  W.  727. 

23  Shelton  v.  State,  96  Tenn.  520, 
32  S.  W.  967. 

24  Draper  v.  Falley,  33  Ind.  465; 
Town  of  Martinsville  v.  Frieze,  id. 
507;  Blakemorev.  Dolan,  50  id.  194; 
Ford  v.  Booker,  53  id.  395;  Cowley 
v.  Rushville,  60  id.  327;  Niblack  v. 
Goodman,  67  id.  174;  Clare  v.  State, 
68  id.  17;  Brocaw  v.  Board,  etc.,  73 
id.  543;  Lawson  v.  De  Bolt,  78  id. 
563;  Mclntyre  v.  Marine,  93  id.  193; 
Hall  v.  Craig,  125  Ind.  523,  25  N.  E. 
538;  Eversole  v.  Chase,  127  Ind.  297, 
26  N.  E.  835;  State  v.  Board  of 
Com'rs,  140  Ind.  506,  40  N.  E.  113; 
Boring  v.  State,  141  Ind.  640,  41  N. 
E.  270;  Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
East  St.  Louis,  134  111.  656,  25  N.  E. 
965;  State  v.  Burton,  33  Neb.  823, 
51  N.  W.  140;  Howlett  v.  Cheet- 
ham,  17  Wash.  626,  50  Pac.  522; 
Burnett  v.  Turner,  8?  Tenn.  124,  10 


S.  W.  194;  Robertson  v.  State,  12 
Tex.  App.  541.  t>ee  Jones  v.  Com- 
missioner, 21  Mich.  236;  Pond  v. 
Maddox,  38  Cal.  572;  State  v.  Brew- 
ster, 39  Ohio  St.  653;  In  re  Housa 
Resolution,  12  Colo.  359,  21  Pac. 
485;  Lampkin  v.  Pike,  115  Ga.  827, 
42  S.  E.  213,  90  Am.  St  Rep.  153. 
In  Basnett  v.  Jacksonville,  19  Fla. 
664.  an  act  purported  to  amend  a 
section  which  had  been  amended, 
and  enacted  that  it  should  "  read 
as  follows;  "  held  to  operate  to  re- 
peal all  of  the  section  amended 
which  is  not  embraced  in  the 
amendment.  A  clerical  mistake 
in  the  title  of  the  amendatory  act 
referring  to  the  date  when  the 
amended  act  was  approved  will 
not  vitiate  the  amendatory  statute. 
Saunders  v.  Provisional  Municipal- 
ity, 24  Fla,  226.  See  Wall  v.  Garri- 
son, 11  Colo.  515,  19  Pac.  469. 

25  "A  statute  which  is  repealed  by 
implication  has  no  more  existence 


!:;.; 


am  i:\i-a  h'i;v    .mis. 


on  the  subject,"  Bays  the  United  States  court  of  appeals, 
"the  decided  weighl  of  authority  and  the  bettor  opinion  is 
that  an  amendatory  Btatute  is  oot  invalid,  though  it  purport 

to  amend  a  statute  which  had  previously  been  amended  or 
for  any  reason  been  held  invalid.""-6  This  view,  we  believe, 
;s  sustained  by  the  decisions.-1 

A  New  York  act  of  L883  amended  section  10  of  an  act  of 
L856,  relating  to  schools,  "so  as  to  read  as  follows."  In 
the  legislature  passed  an  act  to  revise  and  consolidate 
the  laws  relating  to  public  instruction,  which  repealed  all 
inconsistent  laws.  It  was  claimed  that  the  act  of  1SG4  re- 
1  the  act  of  185C  and  that  the  amendment  was  void. 
The  court  was  of  a  different  opinion  as  to  the  repeal,  but 
held  that  even  if  the  act  of  lSr»<;  was  repealed,  as  claimed, 
the  amendatory  act  of  lsso  was  nevertheless  valid,  and 
gave  their  reasons  as  follows:  "  The  enactment  of  this  law 
is  put  in  the  form  of  an  amendment  of  a  law  which  was 

than  if  repealed  by  direct  words  of  143  Mass.  418,  9N.  E  701;  Lang  v. 

a  subsequent  act  of  the  legislature,  Calloway,  63  Mo.  App.  3fj;3 ;  Parlin 

and   hence  an   act   purporting  to  Orendorf  Co.  v.  Hord,  78  Mo.  App. 

amend  an  act  repealed  by  implica-  270;  Fenton  v.  Yule,  27  Neb.  753, 

tion  has  no  more  validity  than  if  it  43  N.  \V.  1140;  State  v.  Babcoclc, 

purported  to  amend  an  act  which  23  Neb.  128,  36  N.  W.  348;  Baird  v. 

had  theretofore  been  repealed  by  a  Todd,  27  Neb.  782,  43  N.  W.  1143; 


direct  repealing  clause  in  a  stat- 
u    .  "     E\ersole  v.  Chase,  127  Ind. 
X.  E.  835. 
-    T.eatrice  v.  Masslich,  108  Fed. 

7GG  A.  657. 

-Williamson  v.  Ketter,  59  Ala. 

State  v.  Warford,  84  Ala.  15, 

911;  Ex  parte  Pierce,  87  Ala. 

110,  6  So.  392;  Harper  v.  state,  109 

Ala.  28;  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala. 

901;  O'Rear  v.  Jackson, 

121  Ala.  298,  20  So.  944;  Fletcher  v. 

Prather,  102  Cal.  413,  36  Pac.  658; 

le   v.   Hoard  of  Education, 

66  Kan.  672,  72  Pac,  274;  Lewis  v. 

lentrarg,  105  Ky.  14.  47  S.  W. 

■  Commonwealth  v.  Kenneson, 


State  v.  Partridge,  29  Neb.  158,  45 
N.  W.  290;  State  v.  Bemis,  45  Neb. 
724,  64  N.  W.  348;  State  v.  Kearney, 
49  Neb.  325,  337,  68  N.  W.  533,  70 
N.  W.  255;  State  v.  Wahoo,  62  Neb. 
40,  86  N.  W.  923;  Van  Clief  v.  Var 
Vechten,  55  Hun,  467,  8  N.  Y.  S 
700;  White  v.  Boody,  74  Hun,  39 
26  N.  Y.  S.  94;  People  v.  Canvass 
ers.  77  Hun,  372,  28  N.  Y.  S.  871, 
People  v.  Upson,  79  Hun,  87,  29  N 
Y.  S.  615;  Columbia  Wire  Co.  v 
Boyce,  104  Fed.  172,  44  C.  C.  A.  588, 
Heinze  v.  Butte,  etc.  Min.  Co.,  101 
Fed.  165,  46  C.  C.  A.  219;  MinnesoUv 
&  .Mont.  L.  &  I.  Co.  v.  Billings,  111 
Fed.  972,  50  C.  C.  A.  70. 


AMENDATORY   ACTS.  437 

standing  upon  the  statute  books,  and  whether  that  earlier 
law,  by  force  of  subsequent  legislation,  had  become  inopera- 
tive is  wholly  immaterial.  The  only  question  is,  has  the 
legislature,  in  the  enactment  complained  of,  expressed  its 
purpose  intelligibly  and  provided  fully  upon  the  subject. 
If  it  has,  then  its  act  is  valid  and  must  be  upheld.  That  is 
the  case  here.  The  act  of  1883  contains  all  that  is  pro- 
vided for  in  the  particular  section  of  the  act  of  1856,  and 
gives  full  power  to  the  boards  of  supervisors  with  respect 
to  the  formation  of  school  commissioners'  districts.  A  law 
thus  explicit  and  complete  may  not  be  disregarded  or  in- 
validated because  of  a  possible  mistake  of  the  legislature 
with  respect  to  the  existence  of  the  statute  in  amendment 
of  which  the  act  is  passed.  It  is  an  enactment  of  a  law,  in 
any  view."  28 

When  an  act  is  unconstitutional  and  void  because  a  part 
is  in  conflict  with  the  constitution,  the  invalid  part  may  be 
amended  so  as  to  remove  the  conflict;  and  thereupon  the 
whole  act  will  be  valid  and  of  force  without  re-enactment.29 
The  supreme  court  of  Arkansas,  in  one  of  the  cases  cited, 
uses  the  following  language,  which  is  pertinent  also  to  some 
of  the  other  questions  considered  in  this  section:  "This 
amendment,  it  is  contended,  is  void  for  the  reason  that,  the 
original  section  being  void,  there  was  therefore  nothing  to 
amend  to.  Such  is  a  rule  applicable  to  pleadings  in  court, 
but  by  what  authority  we  are  compelled  to  apply  it  to  the 

28  People  v.  Canvassers,  143  N.  Y.  604,  50  L.  R.  A.  92;  Lynch  v.  Mur- 
84,  89,  37  N.  E.  649.  phy,   119  Mo.   163,   24   S.  W.   774; 

29  Street  v.  Hooten,  131  Ala.  492,  Smith  v.  Howell,  60  N.  J.  L.  384,  38 
32  So.  580;  State  v.  Corbett,61  Ark.  Atl.  180;  Allison  v.  Crocker,  67  N. 
226,  32  S.  W.  686;  Rice  v.  Colorado  J.  L.  596,  52  Atl.  362;  State  v.  Cin- 
Smelting  Co.,  28  Colo.  519,  66  Pac.  cinnati,  52  Ohio  St.  419,  40  N.  E. 
894;  Jacksonville,  T.  &  K.  W.  Ry.  508;  Kansas  City  v.  Stegmiller,  151 
Co.  v.  Adams,  33  Fla.  60S,  15  So.  Mo.  189,  52  S.  W.  723;  English  & 
257,  24  L.  R.  A.  272;  Legler  v.  Scottish  Am.  Mtg.  Co.  v.  Hardy,  93 
Board  of  Com 'rs,  147  Ind.  181,  45  N.  Tex.  289,  55  S.  W.  169.  Compare 
E.  604;  Sudbury  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  Copeland  v.  Sheridan,  152  Ind.  107, 
15?   Ind.  446,  62  N.  E.  45;  Ferry  v.  51  N.  E.  474. 

Campbell,  110  Iowa,  290,  81  N.  W. 


AMI  KDAT0R1     A.CTS. 


law-making  department  in  enacting  laws,  we  are  not  ad- 
vise.!. The  rule  for  the  guidance  of  courts  is  to  ascertain 
the  intention  of  the  legislature,  and  not  the  mistakes  of 
the  legislature,  either  of  law  or  fact.  Now,  the  manifest 
intention  ^\'  the  legislature  was  to  change  the  law  as  it  ap- 
peared on  the  statute  books  by  simply  making  prize  fight- 
ing a  misdemeanor  instead  of  a  felony,  and  to  change  the 
punishment  for  a  violation  of  the  law  accordingly.  The 
amendment,  which  in  fact  is  a  substitution  for  the  original 
second  section  and  not  an  amendment  properly  speaking, 
was  properly  passed,  with  all  proper  reference  to  the  whole 
act  as  matter  of  identification.  .  .  .  Any  act  which 
manifests  a  design  that  an}r  particular  provision  shall  be 
the  law  is  a  sufficient  enactment.  And  when  the  legisla- 
ture lias  |  ower  to  enact  a  law  and  its  intention  is  manifest, 
effect  will  be  given  to  the  intention  rather  than  to  a  mere 
failure  of  its  language  to  express  or  describe  what  was  in- 
tendecl.,,  30 


30  State  v.  Corbett,  61  Ark.  22G, 
210,  241,  o2  S.  W.  6sC.  The  question 
received  very  careful  consideration 
at  the  hands  of  the  New  Jersey 
<ourt  of  errors  and  appeals,  which 
:  "  But  I  am  prepared  to  go 
further  and  hold  that  an  unconsti- 
tutional statute  is  nevertheless  a 
statute  —  that  is,  a  legislative  act. 
Sucli  a  statute  is  commonly  spoken 
of  as  void.  I  should  prefer  to  call 
it  unenforcible  because  in  conflict 
witli  a  paramount  law.  If  prop- 
erly to  be  called  void,  it  is  only  so 
witli  reference  to  claims  based 
upon  it.  Neither  of  the  three  great 
departments  to  which  tho  consti- 
tution has  committed  government 
by  the  people  fan  encroach  upon 
the  domain  of  the  other.  The  func- 
tion of  the  judicial  department, 
with  respect  to  legislation  deemed 
unconstitutional,  is  not  exercised 


in  rem,  but  always  in  personam. 
The  supreme  court  cannot  set  aside 
a  statute  as  it  can  a  municipal  or- 
dinance. It  simply  ignores  stat- 
utes deemed  unconstitutional.  For 
many  purposes  an  unconstitutional 
statute  may  influence  judicial 
judgment;  where,  for  example,  un- 
der color  of  it,  private  or  public; 
action  has  been  taken.  An  uncon- 
stitutional statute  is  not  merely 
blank  paper.  The  solemn  act  of 
the  legislature  is  a  fact  to  be  reck- 
oned with.  Nowhere  has  power 
been  vested  to  expunge  it  from  its 
proper  place  among  statutes.  .  .  . 
The  claim  is  that  under  the  pro- 
vision as  to  amendment,  where  a 
statute  is  wholly  unconstitutional, 
an  amendment  of  the  section  or 
sections  that  make  it  so  leaves  the 
other  sections  unaffected  unless 
inserted  at  length  in  the  new  atat- 


AMENDATORY    ACTS.  439 

§  234.  Effect  of  second  amendment  of  section  which 
ignores  prior  amendment. —  Where  a  section  was  amended 
by  adding  or  inserting  certain  words  or  provisions  and 
re-enacted  as  amended,  and  the  same  section  was  again 
amended  in  another  particular,  not  inconsistent  with  the 
first,  and  re-enacted,  omitting  the  words  inserted  by  the  first 
amendment  and  entirely  ignoring  that  amendment,  it  was 
held  that  the  first  amendment  was  not  repealed  and  the 
words  inserted  remained  in  force  as  part  of  the  section.31 
So  where  a  section  was  amended  by  striking  out  certain 
words,  and  was  again  amended  in  another  particular  by 
striking  out  and  inserting  words  "so  as  to  read  as  follows," 
and  was  re-enacted  with  the  words  stricken  out  by  the  first 
amendment,  it  was  held  that  the  inclusion  of  these  words 
was  an  inadvertence  or  mistake  and  the  words  were  disre- 
garded.32 Section  1455  of  the  code  of  Georgia  provided 
that  elections  on  the  fence  question  should  be  held  at  such 
time  as  the  ordinary  might  appoint.  In  1883  this  section 
was  amended  so  as  to  require  such  elections  to  be  held  on 

ute,  and  that  they  should  be  con-  careful  consideration  of  the  sub- 
sidered  as  if  never  enacted,  so  that  ject  I  have  reached  the  conclusion 
the  new  legislation  is  incomplete  that  a  statute  so  framed  as  to  be 
and  ineffectual.  This  is  a  strained  wholly  or  in  part  unconstitutional, 
and  unnatural  construction  of  the  but  having  a  title  expressing  a 
provision.  To  me  it  seems  very  constitutional  object,  may,  by 
plain  that  the  two  enactments  are  amendatory  legislation,  be  ren- 
te be  read  together,  and  if,  when  dered  constitutional  without  hav- 
so  read,  a  constitutional  enactment  ing  recourse  to  an  enactment  in- 
appears,  the  courts  must  give  it  dependent  throughout  its  provis- 
effect.  ...  A  view  opposite  to  ions."  Allison  v.  Crocker,  67  N.  J. 
that  now  taken  would  lead  to  L.  596,  600-603,  52  Atl.  362. 
much  confusion.  Many  statutes  31  Lewis  v.  Brandenburg,  105  Ky. 
are  of  doubtful  constitutionality.  14,  47  S.  W.  862;  Lang  v.  Calloway, 
To  require  that  the  removal  of  68  Mo.  App.  393;  Parlin  Orendorf 
such  a  doubt  should,  at  the  peril  Co.  v.  Hord,  78  Mo.  App.  279. 
of  those  interested,  require  an  en-  32Svennes  v.  West  Salem,  114 
tirely  new  enactment,  involving  "Wis.  650,  91  N.  W.  121.  See  also 
an  express  or  implied  repeal  of  Custin  v.  Viroqua,  67  Wis.  314,  30 
the  doubtful  legislation,  would  be  N.  W.  515. 
most  unreasonable.    .    .    .     After 


140  \mi  \i>  \  TOET     A.OT8. 

the  first  Wednesday  in  July  following  the  filing  of  the 
petition.  In  1 889  th  i  Bame  section  \v;is  again  amended,  the 
Latter  act  declaring  that  the  section  should  be  amended  by 
inserting  certain  provisions  as  to  the  <|ii;dilications  of  voters 
at  snoh  elections,  and  that  as  a  result  of  such  amendment 
the  section  would  read  "as  follows,"  and  re-enacted  the  old 
section  as  to  the  time  of  elections.  It  was  held  that  the 
amendment  of  1883  was  not  repealed,  but  remained  in  force 
and  continued  to  prescribe  the  time  of  election.33  But  it  is 
a  question  of  intent,  and  in  some  cases  the  intermediate  act 
is  held  to  be  repealed.11 

§  '2'.i').  When  section  subdivided  into  clauses  or  para- 
graphs.—  In  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that  if  the  section  is 
subdivided  into  clauses  or  paragraphs,  and  an  amendment 
is  made  affecting  one  only  of  the  clauses  or  paragraphs,  the 
entire  section  must  nevertheless  be  included  in  the  amenda- 
tory statute;  it  must  be  reconstructed  entire  as  it  is  intended 
in  the  future  to  operate.35  But  in  other  states  it  has  been 
held  that  where  a  section  is  divided  into  numbered  clauses 
or  paragraphs,  each  such  clause  or  paragraph  may  be 
treated  as  a  section  for  purposes  of  amendment;  that  is,  that 
it  will  be  suflicient  to  set  forth  the  particular  clause  or  para- 
graph amended  without  setting  out  all  the  clauses  or  para- 
graphs of  the  section.36 

§  236.  Discrepancy  between  amendment  specified  and 
section  as  amended.  — It  is  not  necessary  that  an  amenda- 
tory statute  should  specify  the  amendment  to  be  made  and 

33  Reeves  v.  Gay,  92  Ga.  309,  18  S.  35  Town  of  Martinsville  v.  Frieze, 

EL    6L     To   same   effect    state  v.  33  Ind.  507. 

Black,  34  S.  C.  194,  13  S.   E.  361;  **  State  v.  Kearney,  49  Neb.  325, 

Horn  v.  State,  114  Ga.  509,40  S.  E.  337,  68  N.  W.  533,  70  N.  W.  255; 

State  v.  Frank,  Gl  Neb.   679,  85  N. 

ambia  Wire  Co.  v.  Boyce,  W.   956;  Nobles   v.  State,  38  Tex. 

104  Fed  17:2,44  C.  C.  A.  588;  Heinze  Crim.   App.   330,  43  &   W.   978.  To 

v.  Butte,  etc.  Min.  Co.,  107  Fed.  165,  same  effect,  Beatrice  v.  Masslicb, 

219;  McDermott  v.  Nas-  108  Fed.  743,  47  C.  C.  A.  657. 
Ban  Electric  K.  R.  Co.,  85  Jinn.  132, 
32  N.  Y.  S.  884, 


AMENDATORY    ACTS.  441 

also  set  out  the  section  as  amended.  But  this  is  frequently 
done.  If  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  recital  of  the 
proposed  amendment  and  the  amendment  as  it  appears  in 
the  section  as  set  forth  at  length  and  complete,  the  latter 
controls.37  It  is  not  only  the  latest  expression  of  the  legis- 
lative intent,  but  the  essential  part  of  the  amendatory  act 
under  the  constitution.  "This  view,"  says  the  supreme 
court  of  Minnesota  in  the  case  cited,  "  would  seem  to  give 
best  expression  to  the  real  intent  of  the  legislature,  who 
were  more  likely  to  have  assented  to  the  paragraph  which 
is  extended  according  to  its  tenor  than  to  the  introductory 
clause."  But  where  both  the  title  and  body  of  an  act  in- 
dicated that  a  certain  amendment  was  to  be  made,  but  the 
section  set  forth  as  amended  omitted  certain  words  of  the 
indicated  amendment  which  made  a  material  change  in  the 
amendment  as  indicated  by  both  the  title  and  body  of  the 
act,  it  was  held  that  the  omission  was  a  clerical  mistake  and 
the  act  was  read  as  if  the  words  were  in.38  And  in  Wiscon- 
sin, whose  constitution  does  not  contain  the  provision  in 
question,  it  is  held  that,  where  an  amendatory  act  provides 
that  a  section  be  amended  in  a  specified  manner  so  that  the 
section  when  amended  shall  read  "  as  follows,"  and  the 
amendment  as  contained  in  the  section  set  forth  differs  from 
the  amendment  previously  specified,  the  latter  will  control.39 
§  237  (133).  Effect  of  amendment  "so  as  to  read  as  fol- 
lows."—  The  constitutional  provision  requiring  amend- 
ments to  be  made  by  setting  out  the  whole  section  as 
amended  was  not  intended  to  make  any  different  rule  as  to 
the  effect  of  such  amendments.  So  far  as  the  section  is 
changed  it  must  receive  a  new  operation,  but  so  far  as  it  is 

37  Gilbert  v.  Georgia  ]R.  R.  &  B.  38  Abernathy  v.  Michell,  113  Ga. 

Go.,  104  Ga.  412,  30  S.  E.  673;  Hart  127,  38  S.  E.  30:J;  Ball  v.  Mapp,  114 

v.  State,  113  Ga.  939,  39  S.  E.  321;  Ga.  349,  40  S.  E.  272. 

Howard  v.  Bangor  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.,  39  Custin  v.  Viroqua,  67  Wis.  314, 

86  Me.  387,  29  Atl.  1101;  Loper  v.  30  N.  W.  515;  State  v.  Still  man.  81 

State,  82  Minn.  71,  84  N.  W.  650;  Wis.  124,  51  N.  W.  260;  Svennes  v. 

Scott  v.  Mo.  Pao.  Ry.  Co.,  38  Mo.  West  Salem,  114  Wis.  650, 91  N.  W. 

App.  523.  121. 


Ill'  AMENDATORY  ACTS. 

not  changed  it  would  be  dangerous  to  hold  that  the  mere 
nominal  re-enactment  should  have  the  effect  of  disturbing 
the  whole  bodv  of  statutes  in  pari  materia  which  had  been 
■  1  since  the  first  enactment.40  There  must  be  some- 
thing in  the  nature  of  the  new  Legislation  to  show  such  an 
intent  with  reasonable  clearness  ln-fore  an  implied  repeal 
can  be  recognized.41  "By  observing  the  constitutional 
form  of  amending  a  section  of  a  statute,"  says  the  court  in 
one  case,  "  the  legislature  does  not  express  an  intention  then 
to  enact  the  whole  section  as  amended,  but  only  an  inten- 
tion then  to  enact  the  change  which  is  indicated.  Any 
other  rule  of  construction  would  surely  introduce  unex- 
pected results  and  work  great  inconvenience."42 

The  amendment  operates  to  repeal   all   of   the    section 
amended  not  embraced  in  the  amended  form.43     The  por- 


«°  Small  v.  Lutz.  41  Ore.  570,  67 
Pac.  421,  G9  Pac.  825. 

*'  Hellraan  v.  Shoulters,  114  Cal. 
136,  45  Pac.  1068;  Gordon  v.  People, 
•It  Midi.  4S5,  7  X.  W.  69;  Ely  v. 
Holton,  15  N.  Y.  595;  Moore  v. 
Mausert.49  i<l.  832;  People  v.  Su- 
pervisors, 67  N.  Y.  109.  23  Am.  St, 
94;  Burwell  v.  Tullis,  12  Minn. 
."")72:  Alexander  v.  State,  9  Ind.  337; 
Longlois  v.  Longlois,  48  id.  60-64; 
Benton  v.  Wickwire,  54  N.  Y.  226; 
The  Borrowdale,  39  Fed.  376. 
See  Powers  v.  Shepard,  48  N.  Y. 
540. 

v  State  v.  Newark,  57  N.  J.  L, 
298,  801,  80  Atl.  543. 

'  Medical  College  v.  Muldon,  46 
Ala.  603:  Ratcliff  v.  People,  22  Colo. 
75,  4:J  Pac.  553;  Bas-  ^.son- 

ville,  19  Fla.  60!;  State  v.  Routh, 
01  Minn.  205,  63  N.  W.  021;  Rund- 
lett  v.  St.  Paul.  01  Minn.  823,  00  N. 
3hadewald  v.  Phillips,  72 
Mini  N.  W.  717;  Helena  v. 

:i.  .'7  Mont.   135,  G9  Pac  709; 


Nash  v.  White's  Bank.  37  Hun,  57; 
Guaranty  Trust  Co.  v.  Troy  Steel 
Co.,  33  Misc.  484,  68  N.  Y.  S.  915; 
Fargo  v.  Ross,  11  N.  D.  369,  92  N. 
W.  449;  Reid  v.  Smoulter,  128  Pa, 
St.  324.  18  Atl.  445;  Sener  v. 
Ephrata,  176  Pa.  St.  80,  34  Atl.  954; 
Somers  v.  Commonwealth,  97  Va. 
759,  33  S.  E.  384;  Bierer  v.  Blurok, 
9  Wash.  63,  36  Pac.  975;  Nudgett 
v.  Liebes,  14  Wash.  482,  45  Pac.  19; 
Ashland  Water  Co.  v.  Ashland 
County,  87  Wis.  209,  58  N.  W.  235. 
Amendatory  acts  should  not  re- 
ceive a  forced  construction  to 
make  them  repealing  statutes.  Lu- 
cas County  v.  Chicago,  Burlington 
&  Q.  Ry.  Co.,  67  Iowa,  541,  25  N.  W. 
769.  In  Bank  of  Metropolis  v.  Fa- 
ber,  150  N.  Y.  200,  44  N.  E.  779,  the 
court,  after  referring  to  the  gen- 
eral rule  that  when  a  section  is 
amended  "so as  to  read  as  follows" 
the  section  amended  is  repealed, 
says:  "  That  rule  is  not  so  absolute 
and  unqualified  as  not  to  be  made 


AMENDATORY    ACTS. 


US 


tions  of  the  amended  sections  which  are  merely  copied 
without  change  are  not  to  be  considered  as  repealed  and 
again  enacted,  but  to  have  been  the  law  all  along;  and  the 
new  parts  or  the  changed  portions  are  not  to  be  taken  to 
have  been  the  law  at  any  time  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
amended  act.  The  change  takes  effect  prospectively  ac- 
cording to  the  general  rule.44  But  all  the  provisions  of  the 
prior  law  amended  which  continue  in  force  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  amendatory  act  derive  their  force  thereafter  not 
from  the  original  but  the  amendatory  act,  and  as  to  the 
future  the  old  act  or  section  is  repealed  in  toto.ih  A  repeal  of 
that  act  would  not  revive  the  provisions  as  originally  en- 
acted.46    On  the  contrary,  a  repeal  of  the  amendatory  act 


to  yield  to  a  contrary  intention 
when  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  nat- 
ure of  the  case,  in  the  language 
employed  and  in  the  course  of  con- 
temporaneous legislation  on  the 
subject."     p.  207. 

"Ely  v.  Holton,  15  N.  Y.  595; 
Moore  v.  Mausert,  49  id.  832;  Nash 
v.  White's  Bank,  37  Hun,  57;  Syra- 
cuse Savings  Bank  v.  Town  of  Sen- 
eca Falls,  86  N.  Y.  317;  Goillotel  v. 
Mayor,  etc.,  87  N.  Y.  441;  Calhoun 
v.  Delhi,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Hun,  379; 
Kerlinger  v.  Barnes,  14  Minn.  52G; 
New  York.  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Horn, 
57  N.  Y.  473,  477;  Murray  v.  Gibson, 
15  How.  421,  14  L.  Ed.  755;  Gamble 
v.  Beattie,  4  How.  Pr.  41;  Benton  v. 
Wick  wire,  54  N.  Y.  226;  Matter  of 
Peugnet,  67  N.  Y.  444;  McEwen  v. 
Den,  Lessee,  24  How.  242,  16  L.  Ed. 
672;  Walker  v.  State,  7  Tex.  A  pp. 
245;  Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  31  Wis. 
127;  State  v.  Ingersoll,  17  id.  631; 
Mann  v.  McAtee,  37  Cal.  11;  Kelsey 
v.  Kendall,  48  Vt.  24;  Bay  v.  Gage, 
36  Barb.  447;  Bratton  v.  Guy,  12  S. 
C.  42;  McGeehan  v.  Burke,  37  La. 
Ann.  156;  State  v.  Brewster,  3  Am. 


&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  551;  Kamerick 
v.  Castleman,  21  Mo.  A  pp.  587; 
State  v.  Andrews,  20  Tex.  230;  Mc- 
Mullen  v.  Guest,  6  Tex.  275;  State- 
v.  Baldwin,  45  Conn.  134;  Alex- 
ander v.  State,  9  Ind.  387;  Cordell 
v.  State,  22  id.  1;  Martindale  v.. 
Martindale.  10  id.  566;  Fullerton  v. 
Spring,  3  Wis.  667;  Stingle  v.,Nevel, 
9  Ore.  62;  Laude  v.  Chicago,  etc. 
Ry.  Co.,  33  Wis.  640;  Glentz  v.  State, 
38  id.  549;  Powers  v.  Shepard,  48  N. 
Y.  540;  United  Hebrew  B.  Ass'n  v. 
Benshimol,  130  Mass.  325;  Morrisse 
v.  Royal  British  Bank,  1  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 
67;  Middleton  v.  New  Jersey,  etc. 
Co.,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  269. 

«  Huffman  v.  Hall,  102  Cal.  26,  36 
Pac.  417;  Palmer  v.  Danville,  166 
111.  42,  46  N.  E.  629;  People  v.  Hil- 
ler,  113  Mich.  209,  71  N.  W.  630; 
State  v.  Reads,  76  Minn.  69, 78  N.  W. 
883;  Bock  v.  New  York,  31  Misc. 
54,  64  N.  Y.  S.  545;  Fowler  v.  Co- 
lumbia Co.,  18  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  653;  Cole 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Falls,  92  Tenn.  607,  22 
S.  W.  856. 

«  State  v.  Burk,  88  Iowa,  661,  56- 
N.  W.  180;  Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  81 


Ill 


AMENDATORY    ACTS. 


would  be  a  repeal  of  the  provisions  therein  continued  in 
force  from  the  original  act.47 

The  word  " hereafter "  used  in  the  statute  as  amended 
must  be  construed  distributively.  As  to  cases  within  the 
Statute  as  originally  enacted,  it  means  subsequent  to  the 
_■<•  n\'  the  original  act;  as  to  cases  brought  within  the 
statute  by  the  amendment,  it  means  subsequent  to  the  time 
of  the  amendment.48  It  is  a  general  rule,  however,  that  an 
amended  statute  is  construed,  as  regards  any  action  had 
after  the  amendment  was  made,  as  if  the  statute  had  been 
originally  enacted  in  the  amended  form.49  "The  effect  of 
an  amendment  of  a  section  of  the  law  is  not  to  sever  it  from 
its  relation  to  other  sections  of  the  law,  but  to  give  it  oper- 
ation in  its  new  form  as  if  it  had  been  so  drawn  originally, 
treating  the  whole  act  as  a  harmonious  entirety,  with  its 
Beveral  sections  and  parts  mutually  acting  upon  each 
other."50  Where  a  proviso  is  added  to  a  section  by  amend- 
ment it  will  be  strictly  construed  and  will  be  applied  only 
to  that  section,  unless  a  contrary  intent  is  clear.51 


Wis.  127;  People  v.  Supervisors.  07 
X.  Y.   in'.);  People  v.  Wilmerding, 
N.  Y.  363,  32  X.  E.  1099. 
47  Moody  v.  Seaman,  40  Mich.  71, 
8  X.  W.  711. 

4-  Matter  of  Peugnet,  67  N.  Y.  444; 
Barrons  v.  People's  Gas  Light  & 
Coke  Co.,  75  Fed.  794. 

Bolbrook  v.  Nichol,  36  111.  161; 
Turney  v.  Wilton,  id.  385;  Conrad 
v.  Nail,  24  Mich.  275;  Kameriok  v. 
•man,  21  Mo.  App.  5S7;  Queen 
v.  st.  Giles,  ■'.  E.  &   !'-.  224;  Ashley 
..  Barrington,  1  D.  Chip  848;  Bar- 
ren v.  II  I  la  46;  Nations 
U  Ark.  467,  43  S.  VY.  306; 
Walsh  v.  set.-,   112    Ind.   357,   41 
N.  E.  05,  3i  L.  R.  A.  892;  Meer  v. 
I   '.i  <  "m'r.s.  20  Ind.  App  85, 
59  X.  EL   184;  stat.:  v.  Birzel,  137 
;  s.  W.  921.  38  S.  W.  961; 
Epperson   v.  New   York   Life   Ins. 
<'".  '."»  Mo.  App.  432;  Cass  County 


v.  Sarpy  County,  63  Neb.  813,  89 
N.  W.  291:  Lyon  v.  Manhattan  Ry. 
Co.,  142  N.  Y.  29S,  37  N.  E.  113,  25 
L.  R.  A.  402;  Morgan  v.  Hedstrom, 
104  N.  Y.  224,  58  N.  E.  26;  Stat,-  v. 
Cincinnati,  52  Ohio  St.  419,  40  N.  E. 
508;  United  States  v.  Sapinkow,  90 
Fed.  654;  Fitzgerald  v.  Kewis.  164 
Mass.  495.  41  N.  E.  687;  Hatch  v. 
Calhoun  Circuit  Judge,  127  Mich. 
171,  86  X.  W.  518;  Drew  v.  Tifft,  79 
Minn.  175,  81  X.  W.  839,  79  Am.  St. 
Rep.  440,  47  L.  R.  A.  525;  Farrell  %. 
State,  54  N.  J.  L.  421,  24  All.  725; 
Turner  v.  Davenport,  01  N.  J.  Eq 
is,  47  Atl.  766;  Miller  v.  McKeon, 
15  App.  Div.  133,  44  N.  Y.  S.  371. 
See  Mortimer  v.  Chambers,  63  Hun, 
335,  17  X.  Y.  S.  874. 

M  Farrell  v.  State,  54  N.  J.  L.  421, 
424,  24  Atl.  725. 

51  De  Graft  v.  Went,  104  111.  485,  15 
N.  E.  1075. 


AMKNDATORY    ACTS. 


445 


§  238  (134).  Repeal  and  re-enactment  — Construction 
and  effect. —  Where  there  is  an  express  repeal  of  an  exist- 
ing; statute,  and  a  re-enactment  of  it  at  the  same  time,  or  a 
repeal  and  a  re-enactment  of  a  portion  of  it,  the  re-enact- 
ment neutralizes  the  repeal  so  far  as  the  old  law  is  contin- 
ued in  force.  It  operates  without  interruption  where  the 
re-enactment  takes  effect  at  the  same  time.52  The  intention 
manifested  is  the  same  as  in  an  amendment  enacted  in  th^ 
form  noticed  in  the  preceding  section.  Offices  are  not 
lost;53  corporate  existence  is  not  ended;54  inchoate  statutory 
rights  are  not  defeated;55  a  statutory  power  is  not  taken 
away,56  nor  pending  proceedings57  or  criminal  charges  af- 
fected 58  by  such  repeal  and  re-enactment  of  the  law  on 
which  they  respectively  depend.  This  rule  was  applied  in 
Walker  v.  State,59  though  after  a  conviction  for  murder  and 
a  sentence  of  death  pronounced,  and,  pending  an  appeal 
therefrom,  the  revised  penal  code  took  effect  and  changed 
the  previous  penalty  for  the  offense  from  "  death"  to  "death 


52  Fullerton  v.  Spring,  3  Wis.  667; 
Laude  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  33 
id.  640;  Scheftels  v.  Tabert,  46  id. 
439;  Middleton  v.  N.  J.  &  C.  Ry. 
Co.,  26  N.  J.Eq.  269;  Glentz  v.  State, 
38  Wis.  549;  Moore  v.  Kenockee,  75 
Mich.  332,  42  N.  W.  944,  4  L.  R.  A. 
555;  Junction  City  v.  Webb,  44  Kan. 
71,  23  Pac.  1073;  Swamp  Land  Dis- 
trict v.  Glide,  112  Cal.  85,  44  Pac. 
451;  Santa  Cruz  Rock  Pavement 
Co.  v.  Lyons,  133  Cal.  114,  65  Pac. 
329;  Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16  Colo. 
471,  27  Pac.  1055;  People  v.  Board 
of  Equalization,  20  Colo.  220,  37  Pac. 
964;  Hancock  v.  District  Tp.,  78 
Iowa,  550,  43  Pac.  527;  Butte  & 
Boston  Con.  Min.  Co.  v.  Mont.  Ore 
Purchasing  Co.,  24  Mont.  125,  60 
Pac.  1039:  State  v.  Bemis,  45  Neb. 
724,  64  N.  W.  348;  Matter  of  Prine's 
Estate,  136  N.  Y.  347,  32  N.  E.  1091, 
18  L  R.  A.  713;  Baines  v.  Janes- 
ville,  100  Wis.  369.  75  N.  W.  404; 


State  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  etc. 
R.  R,  Co.,  115  Fed.  363;  Fisher  v. 
Simon,  95  Tex.  234,  66  S.  W.  447; 
State  v.  Mason,  153  Mo.  23,  54  S.  W. 
524;  Julien  v.  Model  B.  L.  &  I. 
Ass'n,  116  Wis.  79,  92  N.  W.  561. 

53  State  v.  Baldwin,  45  Conn.  134. 

54  United  Hebrew  B.  Ass'n  v.  Ben- 
shimol,  130  Mass.  325;  Wright  v. 
Oakley,  5  Met.  400,  406;  Steamship 
Co.  v.  Joliffe,  2  Wall.  450,  17  L.  Ed. 
805. 

55  Caperon  v.  Strout,  11  Nev.  304; 
Skyrme  v.  Occidental,  etc.  Co.,  8  id. 
219;  Moore  v.  Kenockee,  75  Mich. 
332. 

5C  Middleton  v.  New  Jersey,  etc. 
Co.,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  269. 

57Dennison  v.  Allen,  106  Mich. 
295,  64  N.  W.  38. 

«"  State  v.  Gumber,  37  Wis.  298; 
State  v.  Wish,  15  Neb.  448, 19  N.  W, 
686. 

59  7  Tex.  App.  245. 


\u 


AMI  NDATOIH      ^0T8. 


or  confinement  in  the  penitentiary  for  life."  If  a  greater 
penalty  is  imposed  for  an  offense  defined  in  the  re-enacted 
law,  the  previous  law  is  deemed  repealed;  and  after  such 
repeal  takes  effect  there  can  be  no  punishment  inflicted  for 
any  offense  committed  contrary  to  its  provisions  while  they 
were  in  force.60     A  repeal  is  not  rendered  inoperative  by  a 

actment  where  they  are  not  simultaneous,  where  there 
Is  an  interval  of  time  after  the  repeal  takes  effect  before  the 
re-enactment  goes  into  operation  :,:1  or  where,  instead  of  the 
old  law  ceasing  to  operate  by  repeal,  it  has  served  its  pur- 
pose—is exhausted  and  spent  before  there-enactment.62 
Where  in  a  revision  the  sections  of  an  act  are  separated  but 
re-enacted,  they  are  to  be  construed  the  same  as  when  part 
of  one  act.G3 

239  (135).  Amendments  by  implication  not  within 
the  constitutional  requirement  —  Acts  complete  in  them- 
selves.— Where  an  act  does  not  purport  to  be  amendatory, 
but  is  enacted  as  original  and  independent  legislation,  and 
is  complete  in  itself,  it  is  not  within  the  constitutional  re- 
quirement as  to  amendments,  though  it  may,  by  implica- 
tion, modify  or  repeal  prior  acts  or  parts  thereof.64     "The 


*•*>  State  v.  Van  Stralen,  45  Wis. 
4:i7:  State  v.  Campbell,  44  id.  529. 
81  Kane  v.  New  York.  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
49  Conn.  139. 

62  Emporia  v.  Norton.  16  Kan.  23G. 
«»Tise  v.  Shaw.  68  Md.  1,  11  Atl. 
. 

>Ex  parte  Pollard,  40  Ala.  77; 

Tuskaloosa  Bridge  Co.  v.  Olmstead, 

•11  Ala  9;  Falconer  v.  Robinson, 46 

Ala   340;    Ware  v.   St.  Louis,  etc. 

Ala.  6  (7;  Lockhart  v.  Troy, 

'.  a  579;    State  v.  Rogers,  107 

Ala. -144, 1  Ex  parte  Thomas, 

118  Ala.  1,  21  So.  309;  Scales  v.  State, 

Ark.  470,  1  S.  W.  769,  58  Am. 

708;  Little  Rock  v.  Quindley,61 

Art  W.  1058;  St.  Louis, 

J.  M.  ^  8.  By.  Co.  v.  Paul,  04  Ark. 


83,  40  S.  W.  705,  62  Am.  St  Rep. 
154,  37  L.  R.  A.  504;  Nations  v. 
State,  64  Ark.  407,  43  S.  W.  396; 
llellman  v.  Shoulters,  114  Cal.  136, 
45  Pac.  1068;  Denver  Circle  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Nestor,  10  Colo.  403;  Lake  v. 
State,  18Fla  501;  Smith  v.  State, 
29  Fla  40S,  10  So.  894;  Collins  v. 
RUssell,  107  Ga.  423,  33  S.  E.  444; 
Chamlee  v.  Davis,  115  Ga,  266,  41 
S.  E.  091;  People  v.  Wright,  70  111. 
388;  Timm  v.  Harrison,  109  III.  593; 
School  Directors  v.  School  Direct- 
ors, 135  111.  404,  28  N.  E.  49;  People 
v.  Knopf,  183  111.  410,  56  N.  E.  155; 
Barnham  v.  Lange,  16  Ind.  497; 
State  v.  Gerhardt,  145  Ind.  439,  44 
N.  E.  469;  State  v.  Cross,  38  Kan. 
090,  17  Pac.  190;    Aikman  v.  Ed- 


AMENDATORY    ACTS. 


44i 


constitution  does  not  make  the  obviously  impracticable  re- 
quirement that  every  act  shall  recite  all  other  acts  that  its 
operation  may  incidentally  affect,  either  by  way  of  repeal, 
modification,  extension,  or  supply.  The  harmony  or  repug- 
nance of  acts  not  passed  with  reference  to  the  same  sub- 
ject can  only  be  effectually  developed  by  the  clash  of  con- 
flicting interests  in  litigation,  and  the  settlement  of  such 
questions  belongs  to  the  judicial,  not  the  legislative  depart- 
ment."65 

It  has  been  held  in  Nebraska  that  if  a  statute  is  intended 
to  be  amendatory,  and  is  clearly  so,  it  is  within  this  provis- 
ion of  the  constitution,  though  framed  as  an  independent 
act  and  complete  in  itself;  that  being  amendatory,  it  should 
be  expressly  so;  that  the  law  as  amended  should  be  given 


wards,  55  Kan.  751,  42  Pac.  366,  30 
L.  R.  A.  149;  Higgins  v.  Mitchell 
County,  6  Kan.  App.  314,51  Pac.  72; 
Purneil  v.  Mann,  105  Ky.  87,  48  S. 
W.  407;  People  v.  Mahaney,  13 
Mich.  484;  Harrington  v.  Wands, 
23  Mich.  885;  Swartwout  v.  Mich. 
Cent.  R  R.  Co.,  24  Mich.  389:  Rice 
v.  Hosking,  105  Mich.  303,  63  N.  W. 
311,  55  Am.  St.  Rep.  448;  State  v. 
Miller,  100  Mo.  439,  13  S.  W.  677; 
King  v.  Pony  Gold  Min.  Co.,  24 
Mont.  470,  62  Pac.  783;  State  v. 
Trolson,  21  Nev.  419,  32  Pac.  930; 
Everham  v.  Hulit,  45  N.  J.  L.  53; 
Lehman  v.  McBride,  15  Ohio  St. 
573;  Bird  v.  Wasco  County,  3  Ore. 
282;  Fleischner  v.  Chad  wick,  5  Ore. 
152;  State  v.  Rogers,  22  Ore.  348,  30 
Pac.  74;  Warren  v.  Crosby,  24  Ore. 
558,  34  Pac.  661;  Northern  Counties 
Trust  v.  Sears,  30  Ore.  388,  41  Pac. 
931,  35  L.  R.  A.  188;  Smith  v.  Day, 
39  Ore.  531, 64  Pac.  812, 65  Pac.  1055; 
Searights'  Estate,  103  Pa.  St.  210, 
29  Atl.  800;  Gallagher  v.  MacLean, 
193  Pa.  St.  583. 45  Atl.  76;  Common- 


wealth v.  Hoi  stead,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
335;  Matter  of  Emsworth,  5  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  29;  Lawrence  v.  Gram- 
bling,  13  S.  C.  125;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Taxing  District,  4  Lea,  644;  Rail- 
road Co.  v.  Crider,  91  Tenn.  4S9,  19 
S.  W.  618;  Hunter  v.  Memphis,  93 
Tenn.  571,  26  S.  W.  828;  State  v. 
Yardley,  95  Tenn.  546,  32  S.  W.  481, 
34  L.  R  A.  656;  Johnson  v.  Martin, 
75  Tex.  33,  12  S.  W.  321;  Snyder  v. 
Crompton,  87  Tex.  374,  28  S.  W. 
1061;  Clark  v.  Finley,  93  Tex.  171, 
54  S.  W.  343:  Anderson  v.  Common- 
wea'th,  18  Gratt.  295;  In  re  Diet- 
rick,  32  Wash.  471;  Shields  v.  Ben- 
nett, 8  W.  Va.  87;  State  v.  Cain,  8 
W.  Va.  720;  State  v.  Mines,  38  W. 
Va.  125,  18  S.  E.  470;  In  re  Koetting, 
90  Wis.  16R,  62  N.  W.  622;  In  re 
Boulter,  5  Wyo.  329,  40  Pac.  520; 
Morgan  v.  Des  Moines,  54  Fed.  456. 
See  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton, 
71  Ga.  461 ;  Muscogee  R.  R  Co.  v. 
Meal,  26  Ga.  121. 

«5  Searights'  Estate,  163    Pa.  St. 
210,  217,  29  Atl.  800. 


44$ 


\MI    M'A  lo|J\      At    l>. 


in  fall  with  such  reference  to  the  old  law  as  will  clearly 
show  for  what  the  new  law  is  substituted.™  But  the  later 
oases  fully  establish  the  law  of  that  state  in  harmony  with 
the  current  of  authority.67  A  statute  which  merely  fur- 
nishes a  rule  of  construction  for  prior  statutes,  and  is  not 
in  terms  an  amendment,  is  not  within  the  meaning  of  this 
constitutional  regulation;  it  need  not  set  forth  the  statutes 
affected.68  Nor  is  a  statute  amendatory  which  repeals  in 
geni  ral  terms  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  which  are  inconsist- 
ent with  its  provisions.68 

An  act  was  entitled  "An  act  to  amend  an  act  entitled  an 
act  to  more  effi  ctively  secure  competent  and  well  qualified 
jurors  in  the  county  of  Montgomery,  approved  February  21, 
1  ^x7.'"     The  body  of  the  act  did  not  purport  to  amend,  and 


MSmails  v.  White,  4  Neb.  357; 
Sovereign  v.  State,  7  id.  409,  413; 
In  re  House  Roll  284.  31  Neb.  505, 
48  N.  W.  275:  Btrioklett  v.  State, 
31  Neb.  674,  48  N.  W.  820;  State  v. 
ty  Conrrs,  47  Neb.  428,  Go  N. 
W.  434. 

State  v.  Arnold,  31  Neb.  75,  47 
N.  W.  694;  Smith  v.  State.  84  Neb. 
689,  52  N.  W.  572;  Van  Horn  v. 
State.  46  Neb.  62,  04  N.  \V.  365; 
Cooperrider  v.   State,  4G    Neb.  84, 


which  it  does  not  refer,  it  is  with- 
in the  constitutional  inhibition 
quoted  above.  In  other  words,  tin- 
fundamental  law  of  the  state  re- 
quires all  the  parts  of  an  amended 
law  to  be  incorporated  in  the  act, 
and  the  old  law  so  amended  to  be 
repealed.  .  .  .  It  is  also  firmly 
established  in  this  state  by  a  long 
line  of  decisions  that  an  act  com- 
plete in  itself  is  not  inimical  to 
said    constitutional   provision,   al- 


State   v.  Moore,  48    though  such  act  may  be  repugnant 


64  N  W. 
Neb.  870,  67  N.  W.  876;  State  v. 
Cornell,  00  Neb.  520,  70  N.  W.  56; 
Henry  v.  Ward,  4!)  Neb.  892,  08  N. 
W.  518;  Bryant  v.  Dakota  County, 
•.  755,  71  N.  \Y.  313;  Nebraska 
L,  &  R  Ass'n  v.  Perkins,  61  Neb. 
35  N.  W.  07.  In  State  v.  Moore, 
373,  67  N.  W.  870.  the 
court  Bays:  "This  constitutional 
provision  has  been  frequently  be- 
fore this  court  for  consideration, 
and  it  is  a  rule  well  settled  that 
where  an  act  of  the  legislature  is 
not  complete  in  itself,  but  is 
amen  latorv   of  a   former    law  to 


to,  or  in  conflict  with,  a  prior  law 
which  is  not  referred  to  nor  in  ex- 
press terms  repealed  by  the  former 
act.  In  such  case  the  earlier  stat- 
ute will  be  construed  to  be  repealed 
by  implication."  This  same  lan- 
guage was  quoted  and  approved  in 
State  v.Cornell,  50 Neb.  526,  70  N. 
W.  r,<\. 

68  State  v.  Geiger,  65  Mo.  306. 

69 Medical  College  v.  Muldon,  46 
Ala.  603;  State  v.  Gaines,  1  Lea, 
784;  Matter  of  Emsworth  Borough, 
5  Pa.  Supr.  Ct,  29. 


AMENDATORY    ACTS.  449 

proceeded  as  a  new  and  independent  act.  It  affected  only 
one  of  the  eighteen  sections  of  the  act  of  February  21.  It 
was  held  that  the  words  "to  amend  an  act  entitled  an  act" 
and  "approved  February  21,  1887,"  in  the  title,  could  be 
treated  as  surplusage,  and  the  act  was  sustained  as  an  inde- 
pendent act.70 

§  240.  Whether  act  amendatory  within  the  constitu- 
tional provision — Illustrations. —  An  act  of  Illinois  en- 
titled "An  act  for  the  assessment  of  property  and  provid- 
ing the  means  thereof,  and  to  repeal  a  certain  act  therein 
named,"  provided  a  new  mode  and  new  machinery  for  the 
assessment  of  property  for  taxation,  but  left  the  old  reve- 
nue law  in  force  in  various  parts,  so  that  it  was  necessary 
to  use  parts  of  the  old  law  in  connection  with  the  new  in 
order  to  make  a  complete  law  for  the  assessment  of  prop- 
erty for  taxation.  The  new  act  proceeded  as  a  new  and 
independent  act  and  was  complete  in  itself,  as  far  as  it 
went.  It  was  held  not  to  be  amendatory  within  the  con- 
stitution.71    An  act  which  is  independent  and  complete  in 

70  Thomas  v.  State,  124  Ala.  48,  existing  laws.  On  the  other  hand, 
27  So.  315.  To  same  effect,  Peed  if  the  act  is  merely  an  attempt  to 
v.  McCrary,  94  Ga.  487,  21  S.  E.  232;  amend  the  old  law  for  the  assess- 
Bagwell  v.  Lawrenceville,  94  Ga.  inent  of  property  by  intermingling 
654,  21  S.  E.  903.  new  and  different  provisions  with 

71  People  v.  Knopf,  183  111.  410,  56  the  old  ones  or  by  adding  new  pro- 
N.  E.  155.  The  court  says:  "So  far  visions,  so  as  to  create  out  of  the 
as  the  title  goes,  the  act  purports  existing  laws  and  this  act  together 
to  be  a  complete  law  in  itself  and  an  act  for  the  assessment  of  prop- 
to  make  provision  for  the  assess-  erty,  then  the  act  is  clearly 
ment  of  property  throughout  the  amendatory  of  the  old  law,  and  the 
state  and  to  provide  the  means  requirement  of  the  constitution  is 
therefor.  If  it  can  be  held  to  be  that  the  law  so  amended  must  be 
such  a  law,  constituting  a  com-  inserted  at  length  in  the  new  act. 
plete  and  entire  act  of  legislation  The  character  of  the  act  in  this 
on  the  subject  which  it  purports  respect  must  be  determined,  not  by 
to  deal  with,  it  will  be  deemed  the  title  alone  nor  the  question 
good  and  not  subject  to  the  consti-  whether  the  act  professes  to  be  an 
tutional  prohibition,  notwithstand-  amendment  of  existing  laws,  but 
ing  it  may  repeal  by  implication,  by  an  examination  and  comparison 
or  modify  the  provisions  of  prior  of  its  provisions  with   prior  laws 

29 


150  tMENDATOBl     .\<  is. 

;s  ii.it  within  the  constitution  because  there  is  a  prior 
act  covering  the  same  Bubject  and  the  purposes  of  the  new 
aot  might  have  been  accomplished  by  an  amendment  of  the 
<>M,7-'  or  because  the  new  act  is  in  effect  a  revision  of  the 
An  act  provided  that  there  should  be  exempt  from 
execution  and   attachment  in   favor  of  every  householder 

nal  property  to  the  amount  of  $1,000  in  addition  to 
the  property  exempt  under  section  t86  of  the  code.  This 
was  held  to  be  amendatory  of  section  486,  and,  as  it  did  not, 
Bet   out   the  section  as  amended,  the  act  was  held  void.74 

on  14  of  the  Nebraska  criminal  code  was  as  follows: 
••  If  any  person  shall  assault  another  with  intent  to  commit 
a  murder,  rape  or  robbery  upon  the  person  so  assaulted, 
(Very  person  so  offending  shall  be  imprisoned  in  the  peni- 

ary  not  more  than  lifteen  years  nor  less  than  two 
years."  Afterwards  an  act  was  passed,  independent  in 
form,  section  1  of  which  covered  assault  with  intent  to  do 
great  bodily  injury,  and  section  2  of  which  was  as  follows: 
"If  any  person  shall  assault  another  with  the  intent  to  kill 
the  person  so  assaulted,  every  person  so  offending  shall  be 
imprisoned  in  the  p<  nitentiary  not  less  than  one  nor  more 
than  ten  years."  Section  1  was  held  to  create  a  new  crime 
and  to  be  valid,75  but  section  2  was  held  to  be  amendatory 

which    are    left    in   force.    .    *    .  statutes    present    the     aspect     of 

These   questions  are,  however,   to  what  has  been  called  patch-work 

be   looked  at  in  the  light  of  the  legislation,  as  they  undeniably  do, 

rule  that  an  act  within  the  legisla-  should  not  render  the  act  void,  if 

tive   power  is    to  be  sustained  as  it  can  be  said  the  act  is  reasonably 

tutional  if  it  can  reasonably  complete  and    sufficient   in   itself 

>•,  and  the  reason  for  giving  upon  distinct  branches  of  the  gen- 

the  rule  its  utmost  force   in   this  eral  subject."    pp.  415,  416. 

especially  cogenton  account  "2  State  v.  Rogers,  107  Ala.  444,  19 

of  conditions  which   are    plainly  So.  !>()!). 

rent  to  everyone.     Under  all  73  In  re  Dietrick,  32  Wash.  471. 

the  circumstances  the  act  should  "4  Copland  v.  Pirie,  26  Wash.  481, 

be   sustained,  if  possible,  as  inde-  67  Pac.  227,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  769;  In 

pendent    legislation,   and    not    as  re  Buelow,  98  Fed.  86. 

amendatory     in    character.      The  '"Smith  v.  State,  34  Neb.  689,  52 

mere  fact  that  portions  of  the  old  N.  W.  572. 
law  are  left  in  force,  so  that  the 


AMEND ATOKY    ACTS.  451 

of  section  14  of  the  criminal  code  and  to  be  void,  because 
not  in  compliance  with  the  constitution  as  to  amendments.™ 
An  act  provided  that  all  public  high  schools  should  there- 
after be  open  to  attendance  by  any  person  of  school  age 
residing  outside  the  district  who  is  a  resident  of  the  state 
and  whose  education  cannot  profitably  be  carried  further 
in  the  public  schools  of  the  district  of  his  residence.  This 
was  held  to  be  amendatory  of  the  prior  law,  which  provided 
that  all  schools  should  be  free  to  all  children  between  the 
ages  of  five  and  twenty-one  whose  parents  or  guardians  re- 
sided within  the  limits  of  the  district,  and,  as  it  did  not  set 
out  and  re-enact  the  prior  law7,  to  be  void.77  An  act  which 
detached  territory  from  one  municipality  and  added  it  to 
another  was  held  not  to  amend  the  charter  of  the  former.78 
An  act  amendatory  of  the  act  for  the  incorporation  of  met- 
ropolitan cities  provided  that  no  policeman  should  be  al- 
lowed fees  as  a  witness  in  any  case  tried  in  any  court  of  the 
state.  This  was  held  to  be  amendatory  of  the  general  lawr 
in  regard  to  witness  fees  and  to  be  void.79  An  act  which 
postpones  the  time  wThen  another  act  shall  take  effect  and 
makes  provision  for  the  subject-matter  in  the  meantime  was 
held  not  to  be  amendatory  of  the  latter  act.80  An  act  which 
adopts  the  provisions  of  another  act  is  not  amendatory  of 
the  latter. sl  So  of  an  act  which  extends  the  operation  of 
another  act.82 

§  241.  Miscellaneous  cases  and  questions  in  regard  to 
amendatory  acts. —  Whether  an  amendment  to  a  section 
must   be    germane   to   the   subject-matter  of   the   section 

™Stricklett  v.  State,  31  Neb.  674,  8<>Loomis   v.  Runge,  66   Fed.  856, 

48  N.  W.  820.    The  following  is  a  14  C.  C.  A.  148,  30  U.  S.  App.  133. 

similar  case  with  the  same  ruling:  81  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Cornel  i. 

State  v.  Guiney,  55  Kan.  532,  40  Pac.  59  Neb.  364,  81  N.  W.  377;  Nebraska 

926.  L.  &  B.  Ass'n   v.  Perkins,  61  Neb. 

"Board  of  Education  v.  Moses,  254,  85  N.  W.  67;  Phoenix  Ass.  Co. 

51  Neb.  288,  70  N.  W.  946.  v.  Fire  Dept,  117   Ala,  631,  23  So. 

78  Roby    v.   Shepard,  42  W.  Va.  843,  42  L.  R.  A.  468. 

286,  26  S.  E.  278.  82  Bradley   v.  Loring,  54  N.  J.  L. 

79  Douglas  County  v.    Hayes,  52    227,  23  Atl.  685. 
Neb.  191,  71  N.  W.  1023. 


A.MK.NP.YTOKY    ACTS. 

amended  is  a  question  which  has  been  treated  in  a  former 
ohapter."  Anaot  may  be  an  amendment  of  another,  though 
not  so  expressed.81  An  amendatory  act  is  not  void  because 
it  was  introduced  in  the  Legislature  before  the  act  amended 
became  a  law.88  Where  an  act  of  incorporation,  when  con- 
sidered by  itself,  does  not  confer  a  certain  power  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  subsequent  acts  assuming  or  im- 
plying that  such  power  exists  cannot  have  the  effect  of 
amending  the  prior  act  so  as  to  confer  the  power.86  An  act 
purported  to  amend  section  2  of  chapter  112  of  the  acts  of 
L897.  The  amendment  had  no  relevancy  to  section  2  but  did 
to  section  11.  It  was  held  to  be  a  manifest  mistake  in  the 
number  of  the  section  amended  and  the  act  was  construed 
as  an  amendment  of  section  ll.87  An  act  was  entitled  "An 
act  to  revise  the  code  of  civil  procedure  of  the  state  of 
California,  by  amending  certain  sections,  repealing  others 
and  adding  certain  new  sections."  The  act  amended  over 
four  hundred  sections,  repealed  nearly  a  hundred  sections 
and  added  many  new  sections.  It  was  held  to  be  a  revision 
of  the  code  and  to  be  void  because  it  did  not  set  out  and 
re-enact  the  entire  code  as  amended.88     Where  an  act  or 

83  Ante.  §  139;  and  see  Under-  85  Mutual  Benefit  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
wo  d  v.  McDuffee,  15  Mich.  361,  367,  Winne,  20  Mont.  20,  49  Pac.  446. 
93  Am.  Dec.  194;  Gibson  v.  State,  86State  v.  Lincoln  Trust  Co.,  144 
16Fla.  291;  Ex  parte  Cowert,  92  Mo.  563,  4G  S.  W.  593.  The  court 
Ala.  94,  9  So.  225:  State  v.  Am.  says:  "  While  a  statute  may  be  re- 
Sugar  Ref.  Co.,  106  La.  553,  31  So.  pealed  by  implication  it  cannot  be 
181;  Truinblev.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  amended  otherwise  than  as  pro- 
5  X.  W.  869;  State  v.  Tibbets,  vided  by  section  34,  article  IV.  of 
52  Neb.  228,  71  X.  W.  990,  06  Am.  the  state  constitution,  and  the 
St.  Rep.  492;  State  v.  Bowen,  54  mere  recognition  of  such  powers 
Xeb.  211,  74  X.  W.  615;  Armstrong  did  not  have  the  effect  to  create 
v.  Mayer,  60  Neb  428,  83  N.  W.  401.  them." 

ird    of    Water    Com'rs    v.  »•  State  v.  Cross,  44  W.  Va.  315, 

People,  137  111.  660,  27  N.  E.  098;  29  S.  E.  527. 

English  v.  Danville,  150111.  92,  36  HH  Lewis  v.   Dunne,  134  Cal.  291, 

:-.    EL    994;    Cassell  v.    Lexington,  66  Pac.  478,  86  Am.  St.  Rep.  257,  55 

etc.    Turnpike   Co.,    10    Ky.    J.    R.  L.  R.  A. 

8.  W.  502,  701;  State  v.  I 
inson,  32  Ore.  1 


AMENDATORY    ACTS.  453 

chapter  is  amended  by  adding  sections  thereto  having  cer- 
tain numbers,  and  later  the  same  act  or  chapter  is  amended 
by  adding  sections  with  the  same  numbers,  the  earlier  act 
is  not  repealed  or  affected  by  the  later.89 

§242.  Revival  of  law. —  The  constitutional  provision 
now  under  consideration  usually  provides  that  no  law  shall 
be  amended  or  revived  by  reference  to  its  title,  and  requires 
the  act  revived  to  be  set  out  and  published  at  length.  Few 
cases  have  arisen  on  this  branch  of  the  provision.  It  has 
been  held  that  a  repealed  act  is  not  revived,  in  the  constitu- 
tional sense,  when  its  provisions  are  adopted  by  another  act 
for  the  purposes  of  the  latter  act  only.90 

§  243.  Constitutional  provisions  against  adopting  or 
-extending  the  provisions  of  a  law. —  The  constitution  of 
New  York  provides  that  "  no  act  shall  be  passed  which  shall 
provide  that  any  existing  law,  or  any  part  thereof,  shall  be 
made  or  deemed  a  part  of  said  act,  or  wThich  shall  enact  that 
any  existing  law,  or  part  thereof,  shall  be  applicable,  except 
by  inserting  it  in  such  act."91  There  are  similar  constitu- 
tional provisions  in  other  states.92  A  New  York  statute  for 
the  acquisition  and  improvement  of  lands  in  connection  with 
a  bridge  over  the  Harlem  river  provided  that  the  procedure 
to  acquire  title  to  the  lands  in  question  should  be  the  same 
as  was  provided  in  another  specified  act.  The  act  was  held 
valid  and  not  in  violation  of  the  constitutional  provision 
quoted.  As  the  authorities  on  this  question  are  few  and 
the  case  is  well  considered,  we  quote  from  the  opinion  as 

89  Ex  parte  Ruffin,  119  Cal.  487,  "No  law  shall  be  revived,  amended, 

51   Pac.  862;  Ex  parte  Williams,  or  the  provisions  thereof  extended 

121  Cal.  328,  53  Pac.  706;  Hellman  or  conferred,  by  reference  to  its 

v.  Shoulters,  114  CaL  136,  45  Pac.  title  only;  but  so  much  thereof  as 

1068.  is  revived,  amended,  extended  or 

9U  State  v.  Green.  36  Fla.  154,  18  conferred  shall  be  re-enacted  and 
So.  334.  And  see  Stewart  v.  State,  published  at  length."  See  also  the 
100  Ala.  1,  13  So.  943;  Miller  v.  constitutions  of  Arkansas,  Colo- 
Berry,  101  Ala.  531,  14  So.  655.  rado  and  Pennsylvania.     The  pro- 

91  Art.  3,  sec.  17.  vision  in  Pennsylvania  is  the  same 

92  Ala.  Const.  1875,  art.  4,  sec.  2.  as  in  Alabama. 


AMI  M'A  lokY      \CI'S. 

follows:  "A  constitutional  provision  intended  to  operate  as 
•a  upon  the  legislature,  with  respect  to  the  language 
and  forms  of  expression  to  be  used  in  framing  acts  of  legis- 
lation, is  not  to  be  so  construed  as  to  embrace  cases  not 
fairly  within  its  general  purpose  or  policy,  or  the  evils  it 
was  intended  to  correct,  though  they  may  be  within  its  letter. 
.  .  .  The  evil  in  view  in  adopting  this  provision  of  the 
constitution  was  the  incorporating  into  acts  of  the  legisla- 
ture, by  reference  to  other  statutes,  of  clauses  and  provis- 
ions of  which  the  legislators  might  be  ignorant,  and  which 
affecting  public  and  private  interests  in  a  manner  and  to  an 
extent  not  disclosed  upon  the  face  of  the  act,  a  bill  might 
become  a  law  which  would  not  receive  the  sanction  of  the 
legislature  if  fully  understood.  .  .  .  This  appeal  cannot 
be  sustained  without  holding,  in  effect,  that  every  statute, 
general  or  local,  must  contain  within  itself  every  detail  nee- 
essary  for  its  complete  execution,  and  that  when  the  law- 
makers desire  to  adopt  the  procedure  or  some  other  matter 
of  detail  contained  in  a  local  statute,  that  cannot  be  done 
by  a  suitable  reference,  but  the  same  must  be  cut  out  of  the 
other  statute  and  actually  inserted  in  the  new  one  mutatis 
m  ,it, in, lis.  Such  a  construction  of  this  section  of  the  funda- 
mental law,  besides  producing  all  the  mischief  already 
pointed  out,  would  lead  to  innumerable  repetitions  of  laws 
in  the  statute  books,  and  render  them  not  only  bulky  and 
cumbersome,  but  confused  and  unintelligible,  almost  beyond 
conception.  .  .  .  AVhen  a  statute  in  itself  and  by  its  own 
language  grants  some  power,  confers  some  right,  imposes 
gome  duty,  or  creates  some  burden  or  obligation,  it  is  not  in 
conflict  with  this  constitutional  provision  because  it  refers 
to  some  other  existing  statute,  general  or  local,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  pointing  out  the  procedure,  or  some  administrative 
detail,  necessary  for  the  execution  of  the  power,  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  right,  the  proper  performance  of  the  duty,  or 
the  discharge  of  the  burden  or  obligation."93 

People   v.  LorillanJ.  185  X.  Y.     See  also  People  v.  Banks,  67  N.  V. 
',  291,  31  N.  E.  1011.    575;  People  v.  Roosevelt,  24  App. 


AMENDATORY    ACTS. 


455 


Similar  rulings  have  been  made  in  other  jurisdictions, 
and  the  result  of  all  the  authorities  seems  to  be  that  .the 
provision  in  question  was  intended  to  limit  legislation 
which  grants,  modifies  or  destroys  the  rights  of  parties,  but 
to  have  no  application  to  acts  which  simply  adopt  or  make 
applicable  the  provisions  of  other  acts  relating  to  remedies 
or  methods  of  procedure.94  The  supreme  court  of  Penn- 
sylvania says:  "When  there  is  an  established  system  of 
procedure  in  certain  cases,  whether  it  be  by  common  law 
or  statute  or  joint  operation  of  both,  a  new  act  applying 
such  procedure  to  a  new  class  of  cases  by  general  reference 
to  it  is  not  a  violation  of  section  6,  article  3,  although  it 
may  operate  to  some  extent  as  an  extension  of  a  previous 
statute."95  An  act  which  provides  that  one  locality  shall 
be  governed,  in  respect  to  stock  running  at  large,  by  the 
provisions  of  a  law  enacted  for  another  locality,  is  within 
the  provision.96 


Div.  17,  48  N.  Y.  S.  1043;  Matter  of 
Buffalo  Traction  Co.,  25  App.  Div. 
447,  49  N.  Y.  S.  1052;  Choate  v.  Buf- 
falo, 39  App.  Div.  379,  57  N.  Y.  S. 
383;  People  v.  Davis,  78  App.  Div. 
570,  79  N.  Y.  S.  803. 

94  Childs  v.  State,  97  Ala.  49,  12 
So.  441;  Birmingham  Union  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Ely  ton  Land  Co.,  114  Ala.  70, 
21  So.  314;  Cobb  v.  Vary,  120  Ala. 
263,  24  So.  442;  City  Council  v. 
Birdsong,  126  Ala.  632,  28  So.  532; 
Watkins  v.  Eureka  Springs,  49  Ark. 
131,  4  S.  W.  384;  State  v.  Hunter, 
69  Ark.  548,  64  S.  W.  885;  Lloyd  v. 
Smith,  176  Pa.  St.  213,  85  Atl.  199; 
Knisely  v.  Cotterel,  196  Pa.  St.  614, 
46  Atl.  861,  50  L.  R.  A.  86;  Green- 
field Ave.,  191  Pa.  St.  290,  43  Atl. 
290;  James  Smith  Woolen  Machin- 
ery Co.  v.  Browne,  206  Pa.  St.  543; 
Krause  v.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Phila. 
436;  Geerv.  Ouray  County  Com'rs. 


97  Fed.  435,  38  C.  C.  A.  250;  St. 
Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  R  Co.  v.  South- 
western Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.,  121  Fed.  276. 
58  C.  C.  A.  198.  Compare  Bay  Shell 
Road  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  87  Ala.  376 
6  So.  119.  In  the  latter  case  frlv 
court  says:  "The  purpose  of  tn;< 
constitutional  requirement  was  t^ 
have  each  bill  considered  by  the 
general  assembly,  in  and  of  itself 
present  the  full  scope,  operation 
and  effect  of  the  proposed  law,  so 
that  members  might  know  and  in 
telligently  consider  the  details  ot 
every  measure,  and  vote  neithei 
aye  or  nay  in  'blind  ignorance  ot 
its  provisions,  or  even  in  trusting 
confidence  to  the  representations 
of  others.' " 

95  James  Smith  Woolen  Machin- 
ery Co.  v.  Browne,  206  Pa.  St,  543. 

9*  Street  v.  Hooten,  131  Ala.  492, 
32  So.  580. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 

§  244  (13G).  Duration  of  statutes  and  power  of  repeal. 

Statutes  are  perpetual  when  no  time  is  stated.1  A  tem- 
porary statute  operates  until  its  time  expires.2  The  opera- 
tion of  statutes  may  be  suspended;  then  they  will  come  into 
operation  when  the  period  of  suspension  expires.3  A  tem- 
porary statute  made  perpetnal  before  its  expiration  is  in 
effect  perpetual  from  the  beginning.4  Statutes  have  this 
duration  subject  to  the  continuous  power  of  repeal.  A 
state  legislature  has  a  plenary  law-making  power  over  all 
subjects,  whether  pertaining  to  persons  or  things,  within  its 
territorial  jurisdiction,  either  to  introduce  new  laws  or  re- 
peal the  old,  unless  prohibited  expressly  or  by  implication 
by  the  federal  constitution  or  limited  or  restrained  by  its 
own.5  It  cannot  bind  itself  or  its  successors  by  enacting 
irrepealable  laws  except  when  so  restrained.  Every  legisla- 
tive body  may  modify  or  abolish  the  acts  passed  by  itself 
or  its  predecessors.6     This  power  of  repeal  may  be  exercised 

1  United  States  v.  Gear.  3  How.     tinue  longer  than  the  real  disabil- 
120,  11  L.  Kd^  52&  ity  barred  the  institution  of  the 

2  Brown  v.  Barry,  3  Dal  1.  365.  action.      Braun   v.    Sauerwein,   10 
8  A  state  of  war  between  the  gov-     Wall.  218.  19  L  Ed.  895;  Heinssen 

ernments  of  the  creditor  and  debtor  v.  State,  14  Colo.  228,  23  Pac.  995; 

ids  the  right  and  opportunity  People  v.  Murphy,  202  111.  493,  67 

of  a  citizen  of  one  belligerent  to  N.  E.  •■."..'<',;  state  v.  Sawell,  107  Wis. 

-u.-  in  the  courts  of  the  other,  and  300,  83  N.  W.  296. 

as  a  consequence   the  statute   of  4  Dingley  v.  Moor,  Cro.  Eliz.  750; 

limitations  is  suspended  during  the  Rex  v.  Morgan,  Str.  1066;  Rex  v. 

nee  of  the  war,  and  that  time  Swiney,  Alcock  &  Napier,  131. 

is  not  computed  in  limitation  of  6Musgrove  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R 

the   action.     Hanger   v.   Abbott,  6  R  Co.,  50  Miss.  677. 

Wall.  532,  18  L.  Ed.  939.     The  im-  « Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean, 

plied  su-pere-ion   should  not  con-  158,  Fed.   Cas.   No.    1559;    Swift  v. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


45' 


•at  the  same  session  at  which  the  original  act  was  passed;7 
and  even  while  a  bill  is  in  its  progress  and  before  it  be- 
comes a  law.8  The  legislature  cannot  bind  a  future  legisla- 
ture to  a  particular  mode  of  repeal.9  It  cannot  declare  in 
advance  the  intent  of  subsequent  legislatures  or  the  effect 
of  subsequent  legislation  upon  existing  statutes.10 

§  245.  Repealing  effect  of  an  unconstitutional  statute. 
A  repealing  clause  in  a  statute  may  be  valid,  although 
every  other  clause  is  unconstitutional,  if  such  is  plainly  the 
legislative  intent.11  But  where  the  repeal  is  intended  to 
clear  the  way  for  the  operation  of  the  act  containing  the  re- 
pealing clause,  thereby  showing  an  intention  to  displace  the 
old  law  with  the  new,  if  the  latter  is  unconstitutional  the 
repealing  clause  would  be  dependent  and  inoperative.12 
"Where  the  evident  purpose  of  the  repeal  is  to  displace 


Newport,  7  Bush,  37;  McNeil  v. 
Commonwealth,  12  id.  727;  Moore 
v.  New  Orleans,  32  La.  Ann.  726; 
City  Council  v.  Baptist  Church,  4 
St  rob.  306;  Files,  Auditor,  v.  Fuller, 
44  Ark.  273;  Wall  v.  State,  23  Ind. 
153;  De  Groot  v.  United  States,  5 
Wall.  419,  18  L.  Ed.  700;  Monet  v. 
Jones,  10  Sm.  &  Mar.  237;  Chambers 
v.  State,  25  Tex.  307;  Gilleland  v. 
Schuyler,  9  Kan.  569.  See  Oleson 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  36  Wis.  383;  Adam 
v.  Wright,  84  Ga.  720,  11  S.  E.  893. 
^  Spencer  v.  State,  5  Ind.  41,  50; 
Ham  v.  State,  7  Blackf.  314;  Attor- 
ney-General v.  Brown,  1  Wis.  513; 
In  re  Oregon,  etc.  Co.,  3  Sawy.  614, 
Fed.  Gis.  No.  10,561;  Rex  v.  Mid- 
dlesex Justices,  2  B.  &  Ad.  818; 
Bourgignon,  etc.  Ass'n  v.  Common- 
wealth, 98  Pa.  St.  54;  People  v. 
Lyttle,  1  Idaho,  143;  Houghton  Co. 
v.  Commissioners  of  St.  L.  O.,  23 
Mich.  270;  Brown  v.  Barry,  3  Dall. 
305.  See  Manlove  v.  White,  8  Cal. 
376. 


8Southwark   Bank  v.   Common- 
wealth, 26  Pa.  St.  446. 
9  Kellogg  v.  Oshkosh,  14  Wis.  623. 
io  Mongeon  v.  People,  55  N.  Y.  613. 

11  Ely  v.  Thompson,  3  A.  K.  Marsh. 
70;  State  v.  Blend,  121  Ind.  514,  23 
N.  E.  511,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  411.  In 
the  latter  case  the  repealing  clause 
was  held  void,  but  the  court  said 
that  the  legislature  may  use  such 
language  in  a  repealing  clause  at- 
tached to  an  unconstitutional  stat- 
ute as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  its  in- 
tention to  repeal  a  former  law  in 
any  event.  "  Where,  however,  it  is 
not  clear  that  the  legislature,  by  a 
repealing  clause,  attached  to  an 
unconstitutional  act,  intended  to 
repeal  the  former  statute  upon  the 
same  subject,  except  upon  the  sup- 
position that  the  new  act  would 
take  the  place  of  the  former  one, 
the  repealing  clause  falls  with  the 
act  to  which  it  is  attached." 

12  Randolph  v.  Builders'  &  Paint- 
ers' Supply  Co.,  106  Ala.  501,  17  So. 


l;i  ri   \l>    .\M>    M  PEALING    ACTS. 


tlu>  old  law  and   substitute  tin'  new  in   its  stead,  the   repeal- 
n  or  clause,  being  dependent  upon  that  purpose  of 
substitution,  necessarily  tails  when  falls  the  main  purpose 
of  the  act."18      An  unconstitutional  statute  can   have  no 
to  repeal  former  laws  or  parts  of  laws  by  implica- 
tion,  sine,   being   void,   it  is   not  inconsistent   with   such 
ner  laws.'4 

§  246  (137).  Modes  of  rcpo.il,  express  or  implied-  Ef- 
Feet  of  disuse. —  A  repeal  will  take  effect  from  any  subse- 
quent statute  in  which  the  legislature  gives  a  clear  expression 
of  its  will  for  that  purpose.1'  The  word  "repeal"  may  be  used 


721;  People  v.  Fleming,  7  Colo.  230, 

.  7n:  Miller  v.  Edwards,  8  Colo. 

I  Paa  682;  Fesler  v.  Boynton, 
145  Ind.  71.  -1-1  X.  E.37;  Stephens  v. 
Ballon,  27  Kan.  51  I:  Wells  v.  Hy- 
atisville.  77  Md.  125,  26  Atl.  357,  20 
L.  R.  A.  89;  State  v.  Benzinger,  83 
Mil.  481,35  Atl.  173:  Campau  v.  De- 
troit. M  Mich.  276;  Westport  v.  Mc- 

I  28  Mo.  152.  30  S.  W.  523;  State 
v.  Thomas,  138  Mo.  95,  39  S.  W.  481; 
Harbeck  v.  Mayor.  10  Bos.  366;  Peo- 
ple v.  Dooley,  69  App.  Div.  512,  75 
N.  Y.  S.  350:  State  v.  Thrall,  59  Ohio 
St.  3GS,  52  N.  E.  785;  State  v.  Buck- 
ley, 60  Ohio  St.  273,  54  N.  E.  272; 
v.  Jones,  GO  Ohio  St.  453.  61 
N.  E.  121.  !>(i  Am.  St.  Rep  592;  State 
v.  Beacora.  66  Ohio  St.  491,  64  N.  E. 
427,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  599;  State  v. 
Buckley,  17  Ohio  C.  C.  86;  Matter  of 
Roberg's  Assignment,  IS  Ohio  C.  C. 
■■  .1  States  Mtg.  &  T.  Co., 
C.  C.  358;  Collins  v.  Bing- 
haml  IhioCC.  533;  Porter 

v.  King  fish*  i- '  ouniy  Com'rs,  6  Old. 

51  Pac  741;  Barringerv.  Flor- 
11  S.  C.  501,  l'.i  S.  I!.  715:  Oal- 

d  i^  W,  Ry,  Co.  v.  Galveston, 
0,74  S.W.  537;  Ex  part-; 
:  Fed  896. 


In  State  v.  Blend,  121  Ind.  514,  23 
N.  E.  511,  16  Am.  St,  Rep.  411,  the 
court  overrules  the  prior  case  of 
Meshmeier  v.  state.  11  Ind.  i  .'. 
which  holds  a  contrary  doctrine, 
and  declares  that  the  latter  case  is 
inconsistent  with  all  the  other  cases 
on  the  subject,  citing  Tims  v. 
State.  26  Ala.  165;  Sullivan  v.  Ad- 
ams, 3  Cray,  476;  Childs  v.  Shower, 
18  Iowa,  201;  Shepards  v.  Milwau- 
kee, etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Wis.  578;  State 
v.  Burton,  11  Wis.  50;  Devoy  v. 
Mayor,  35  Barb.  264;  People  v.  Tip- 
haine,  3  Parker,  241;  Devoy  v. 
Mayor,  36  N.  Y.  449;  State  v.  Hal- 
lock,  14  New  202,  33  Am.  Rep.  559. 

13  State  v.  Thomas,  138  Mo.  95,  38 
aW.  481.  Contra:  Equitable  Guar- 
anty &  Trust  Co.  v.  Donohoe,  3 
Penn.  (Del.)  191,  49  Atl.  372. 

"  McAllister  v.  Hamlin,  83  Cal. 
301,  23  Pac.  357:  Orange  County  v. 
Harris,  97  Cal.  600.  32  Pac.  594;  Carr 
v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  26  N.  E.  778, 
11  L.  R.  A.  370;  People  v.  Butler  St. 
Foundry  &  I.  Co.,  201  111.  236,  66 
N.  E.  349;  Commonwealth  v.  Fow- 
ler,  18  l'hila.  573. 

w  State  v.  Judge,  14  La.  Ann.  486; 
Casey  v.  Harned,  5  Iowa,  1;  Leard 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  459 

in  a  limited  sense.16  The  suspension  of  a  statute  for  a  limited 
time  is  not  a  repeal17 — it  properly  signifies  the  abrogation 
of  one  statute  by  another.18  It  is  express  when  declared  in 
direct  terms;  implied  when  the  intention  to  repeal  is  inferred 
from  subsequent  repugnant  legislation.  In  neither  form 
will  the  repeal  be  effected  and  operative  until  the  repealing 
statute  goes  into  effect.19 

Laws  are  presumed  to  be  passed  with  deliberation,  and 
with  a  knowledge  of  all  existing  laws  on  the  same  subject.29 
If  they  profess  to  make  a  change,  by  substitution,  of  new 
for  old  provisions,  a  repeal  to  some  extent  is  thus  suggested, 
and  the  extent  readily  ascertained.  Thus,  amendment  is 
frequently  made  by  enacting  that  a  certain  section  shall  be 
so  amended  as  "  to  read  as  follows;  "  then  inserting  the  sub- 
stituted provision  entire  without  specification  of  the  change. 
The  parts  of  the  former  law  left  out  are  repealed.  This  in- 
tention is  manifest.21  There  is  a  negative  necessarily  implied 
that  such  eliminated  portion  shall  no  longer  be  in  force. 
The  re-enacted  portions  are  continuations  and  have  force 

v.  Leard,  30  Ind.  171.     A  recital  in  ™  Abb.  L.  Die,  tit.  Repeal;  Butte 

a  statute  that  a  former  statute  was  &  B.  Con.  Min.  Co.  v.  Mont.  Ore 

or  was  not  repealed  is  not  conclu-  Purchasing  Co.,  24  Mont.    125,  60 

sive,  for  it  is  but  a  legislative  dec-  Pac.  1039. 

laration   on    a    judicial   question.  19  Spaulding  v.  Alford,  1  Pick.  33. 
United  States  v.  Claflin,  97  U.  S.  20  Bowen  v.  Lease,  5  Hill,  221,226; 
546,  24  L.  Ed.  1082,  1085;  Ogden  v.  Landis  v.  Landis,  39  N.  J.  L.  274, 277. 
Blackledge,  2  Cranch,  272,  2  L.  Ed.  21  Moore  v.  Mausert.  49  N.  Y.  332; 
276.     Courts  cannot  regard  a  stat-  People  v.  Supervisors,  67  id.  109,  23 
ute  as  repealed  by  non-user  alone.  Am.  Rep.  94;  McRoberts  v.  Wash- 
Pearson  v.  International  Distillery,  burne,  10  Minn.   23;   State  v.  An- 
72  Iowa,  348,  34  N.  W.  1.  drews,  20  Tex.  230;  Gossler  v.  Good- 
is  Smith  v.  People,  47  N.  Y.  330,  rich,  3  Cliff.  71,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5631 
338:  Rex  v.  Rogers,  10  East,  573;  State    v.   Ingersoll,    17    Wis.    631 
Camden  v.  Anden-on,  6  T.  R.  723;  Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  31  Wis.   127 
State   v.  Baldwin,   45    Conn.    134;  Breitung  v.  Lindauer,  37  Mich.  217 
Robertson  v.  Demoss,  23  Miss.  298,  Longlois   v.    Longlois,  48  Ind.  60 
301;  State  v.  County  Court,  53  Mo.  Mosby  v.  Ins.  Co.,  31   Gratt.   629 
128.     See  Hirschburg  v.  People,  6  State  v.  Wisli,  15  Neb.  448, 19  N.  W 
Colo.  145;  Warren  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bel-  686;  ante,§  237.     See  Hirschburg  v 
videre,  35  N.  J.  L.  584,  587.  People,  6  Colo.  145. 
17  Brown  v.  Barry,  3  Dall.  365. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


from  their  original  enactment.0  Where  a  statute  repeals 
all  former  laws  within  its  purview,  the  intention  is  obvious 
and  is  readily  recognized  to  sweep  away  all  existing  laws 
upon  the  subjects  with  which  the  repealing  aet  deals.-'" 

The  purview  is  the  enacting  part  of  a  statute,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  preamble;  and  a  repeal  of  all  acts  within 
the  purview  of  the  repealing  statute  should  be  understood 
as  including  all  acts  or  parts  of  acts  in  relation  to  all  cases 
which  are  provided  for  by  the  repealing  act,  and  no  more.24 
Hut  a  statute  may  have  the  effect  to  repeal  a  former  statute 
or  some  provision  of  it  though  it  be  silent  on  the  subject  of 
r.peal.  In  such  cases  repeal  is  inferred  from  necessity,  if 
there  be  sueh  conflict  that  the  old  and  new  statutes  cannot 
stand  together.25  Eepugnancy  in  principle  merely,  between 
two  acts,  forms  no  reason  why  both  may  not  stand.26  Nor 
is  one  statute  repealed  by  the  repugnant  spirit  of  another;27 
nor  for  conflict  with  an  unconstitutional  provision.28 

It  has  been  held  that  one  private  act  will  not  repeal  an- 
other by  implication.29  It  has  been  held  that  a  statute  may 
become  repealed  by  adverse  custom  or  long  non-user.30    As 


22  Ely  v.  Holton.  15  N.  Y.  595; 
Goodno  v.  Oshkosh.  31  Wis.  127; 
ante,  $£  237,  238.  The  court  says 
in  the  last  case  cited:  "The  origi- 
nal section,  as  an  independent 
and  distinct  statutory  enactment, 
ceased  to  have  any  existence  the 
very  moment  the  amendatory  act 
was  passed  and  went  into  effect, 
and  whatever  provisions  of  it  re- 
mained as  law  were  such  solely  by 
virtue  of  being  again  enacted  in 
the  amendment.  The  original  sec- 
tion, as  a  separate  statute,  wa  as 
'ually  repealed  and  obliter- 
from  the  statute  book  as  if 
the  repeal  had  been  made  in  direct 
and  express  words  and  none  of  its 
provisions  had  been  re-enacted." 
tgden  v.  Witherspoon,  2  Uay- 


wood,  404;  Harrington  v.  Roches- 
ter, 10  Wend.  547. 

24  Payne  v.  Conner,  3  Bibb,  180; 
Commonwealth  v.  Watts,  84  Ky. 
537,  2S.  W.  123:  Patterson  v.  Cald- 
well, 1  Met.  (Ky.)  489;  Grigsby  v. 
Bair,  14  Bush,  330.  See  Gorham  v. 
Luckett,  C  B.  Mon.  146. 

25  See  next  section. 

2«  Smith.  Ex  parte,  40  Cal.  419. 

27  State  v.  Macon  Co.  Ct,  41  Mo. 
453,  454.  See  Cass  v.  Dillon,  2  Ohio 
St.  012;  State  v.  Cincinnati,  19  Ohio. 
197. 

™Ante,  S245. 

29  Trustees  v.  Laird,  4  De  G.,  M.  & 
('•.  732.  See  Schneider  v.  Staples, 
00  Wis.  107,  28  N.  W.  145. 

3"  Hill  v.Smith,  Morris,  70;  O'lkin- 
Ion  v.  Myers,  10  Rich.  L.  128;  Wat- 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  461 

repeal  can  only  proceed  from  the  legislature,  the  obsolete- 
ness of  the  non-used  statute  must  be  in  some  way  recognized 
in  subsequent  legislation.  Popular  disregard  of  a  statute, 
or  custom  opposed  to  it,  will  not  repeal  it.31  x\  statute  does 
not  cease  on  removal  of  some  of  the  evils  it  was  intended  to 
provide  against.32  Long  practice  may  clear  away  ambigu- 
ities, and  have  a  potent  influence  in  the  interpretation  of  a 
statute.33  So  a  long  disuse  of  a  statute  of  a  penal  nature, 
implying  that  it  has  not  been  kept  in  popular  remembrance, 
or  an  intention  of  the  government  not  to  enforce  it,  may 
incline  a  court  to  soften  its  rigors  within  the  limits  of  judi- 
cial discretion.  Parts  of  a  statute  may  become  useless  and 
incapable  of  any  operation  on  account  of  the  repeal  or 
radical  change  of  other  and  fundamental  parts.  They  should 
be  deemed  repealed,  because  lifeless  fragments.34 

§  247  (138).  Bepeals  by  implication  —  General  rules  — 
Same  not  favored. —  Such  repeals  are  recognized  as  in- 
tended by  the  legislature,  and  its  intention  to  repeal  is  as- 
certained as  the  legislative  intent  is  ascertained  in  other 
respects,  when  not  expressly  declared,  by  construction.35 
An  implied  repeal  results  from  some  enactment  the  terms 
and  necessary  operation  of  which  cannot  be  harmonized 
with  the  terms  and  necessary  effect  of  an  earlier  act.  In 
such  case  the  later  law  prevails  as  the  last  expression  of  the 
legislative  will;  therefore,  the  former  law  is  constructively 
repealed,  since  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  law-making 

son  v.  Blaylock,  2  Mills  (S.  G),  351;  Cas.  (D.  C.)  210;  State  v.  Meek,  26 

Canady  v.  George,  6  Rich.  Eq.  103.  Wash.  405,  67  Pac.  76. 

31  Kitchen  v.  Smith,  101  Pa.  St.  32  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Dearmon,  2  Sneed, 

452;  Homer  v.  Commonwealth,  106  104. 

id.  221,  51  Am.  Rep.  521;  James  v.  33  Leigh  v.  Kent,  3  T.  R.  362.    See 

Commonwealth,  12  S.   &  R.   220;  post,  §  473. 

White  v.  Boot,  2  T.  R.  274;  Leigh  34  Stephens  v.  Ballou,  27  Kan.  594; 

v.  Kent,  3  id.  362;  Tyson  v.  Thomas,  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Collector,  18  Wall. 

McC.  &  Y.   127;    Rex   v.  Wells,  4  478,  490,  21  L,  Ed.  769. 

Dowl.  562;  The  India,  33  L.  J.  Rep.  35  State  v.  McCurdy,  62  Minn.  509, 

P.  M.  &  A.  193;  S.  C,  Br.  &  L.  221;  64  N.  W.  1133;  Thorpe  v.  Schooling, 

Hebbert  v.  Purchas,  L.  R.  3  P.  C.  7  New  15. 
650;    Costello  v.  Palmer,  20  App. 


KIT!    U£     AM'     REP]   AXING     A('l>. 


power  intends  to  enaot  or  continue  in  force  laws  which  are 
contradictions.   The  repugnancy  being  ascertained,  the  later 
act  or  provision  in  date  or  position  has  full  force,  and  dia 
places  by  repeal  whatever  in  the  precedent  law  is  inconsist 
cut  with  it.88 


.  inney  v.  Mallbry,  ;i  Ala.  626; 
L6  Ala.  316;  Smith 
50   A!a.  276;    [vetson  v. 
siii.-.  52  Ala.  170;  Parker  v.  Bub- 
64  Ala.  208;  Riggs  v.  Brewer, 
582;  a   v.  Kent,    78 

rte  Thomas,  113 
Ala  1.  21  So,  369;  state  v.  Watts, 
14;  1'x  parte  Osborn,  24 
Ark.  179;  ('cats  v.  Hill.  41  Ark.  149; 
■  v.  Griffon,  20  Cal.  677;  Peo- 
ple v.  San  Lianeisco,  etc.  1;.   !'.  (  .... 
..  .  254;  Peo|  le  v.  Burt,  43  Cal. 
Reis,  80  Cal.  2GG,  22 
176;  Davis   v.  Whidden,   117 
Cat.  I  <:    Hirschburg 

v.   People,  G   Colo.    145;    Eaton    v. 
I  Colo.   3-1"),  70  Pac.   42G; 
ie  v.  Wright,  30  Colo.  4:19,  71 
Pac   305;    Husbands  v.  Tal 
Penn.  (Del.)  88,  47  Atl.  1009;  Harri- 
l  v.  W       er,  1  Ga.  32;  Elrod   v. 
Gilliland,  27  Ga.  467;  Western  & 
A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta.  113  Ga.  537. 
I   L.  P.  A.  294:  Sulli- 
van v.  People,  15  III.  233;  Fowler  v. 
Perkins,  77  1,1.271;  Pavey  v.  Utter, 
!'.!.  489,  24  N.  E.  77;  Commis- 
sioners of  Highways  v.  Dehoe,  43 
11!.  A]  p.  25;  Spring  Valley  v.  Spring 
Valley   Coal   Co..  71   111.   App.  432; 
.  County,  72  111.  App 
151:  Ilamlyn  v.  Nesbit,  37  Ind.  284; 
Hyland  v.  Brazil   Block  Coal  Co., 
16  N.  E.  G72;  Central 
Iowa   It  R,  Co.  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs, 
67  Iowa.  199.  25  N.  W.  128;  Straight 
:  iwford,  7:;  Iowa,  676,  85 N.  W. 
i:iy    v.    Tliornpson,    3    A.   K. 


Marsh.  70;  Maddoz  v.  Graham,  2 
Met.  (Ky.)  56,  70;  Saul  v.  His  Cred- 
itors, 5  Martin  (N.  S.),  569,  L6  Am. 
Deo.  212:  Cayle's  Heirs  v.  Will- 
iains,  7  La.  162;  Collins  v.  Chase,  71 
Me.  434;  Dugan  v.  Gittings,  3  Gill. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Western 
Hd.  P.  L\  Co.,  50  Md.  275;  State  v. 
Yewell,  63  Md.  120;  New  London, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  102  Ma:  ,.  389;  Chapoton  v.  De- 
troit, 38  Mich,  030;  Connors  v.  Carp 
River  Iron  Co.,  54  Mich.  108,  19  N. 
W.  938;  Gates  v.  Shugrue.  35  Minn. 
N.  W.  57;  Morrison  v.  Lice, 
35  Mien.  436,  29  N.  W.  168;  Plant- 
ers' Bank  v.  State,  6  S.  &  M.  028; 
Miller  v.  Stale,  33  Miss.  35G,  69  Am. 
Dec.  351;  McAfee  v.  Southern  R. 
R.  Co.,  3G  Miss.  GG9:  Swann  v. 
Buck,  40  Miss.  268;  House  v.  State, 
41  Miss.  737;  Hearn  v.  Brogan,  64 
Miss.  334,  1  So.  240;  State  v.  Wish, 
15  Neb.  118.  19  N.  W.  686;  Omaha 
Real  Est.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Kragscow,  47 
Neb.  592,  G6  N.  W.  658;  Eaton  v. 
Burke,  66  N.  H.  306,  22  Atl.  452; 
Buckallew  v.  Ackerman,  8  N.  J.  L. 
48;  Poulson  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  40 
N.  J.  L.  5G3;  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Jersey 
City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  360; 
Public  School  Trustees  v.  Trenton, 
30  N.  J.  Eq.  667;  Baca  v.  Bernalillo 
County  Coni'rs,  10  N.  M.  438;  Pierce 
v.  Delano ater,  1  N.  Y.  17;  People  v. 
Palmer,  52  N.  Y.  83;  Mongeon  v. 
People,  55  N.  Y.  G13;  Lyddy  v. 
Long  Island  City,  104  N.  Y.  218,  10 
N.  E.  155;  Matter  of  Washington 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


463 


Subsequent  legislation  repeals  previous  inconsistent  legis- 
lation whether  it  expressly  declares  such  repeal  or  not.  In 
the  nature  of  things  it  would  be  so.  not  only  on  the  theory 
of  intention,  but  because  contradictions  cannot  stand  to- 


st, etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  115  N.  Y.  442,  22 
N.  E.  356;  People  v.  Canvassers,  77 
Hun,  372.  28  N.  Y.  S.  871;  Bowen 
v.  Lease,  5  Hill,  221;  Farley  v.  De 
Waters,  2  Daly,  192:  Church  v. 
Rhodes,  6  How.  Pr.  281;  State  v. 
Monger,  111  N.  G  G75,  16  S.  E.  229; 
Ruffner  v.  Hamilton  County,  1  Dis- 
ney. 39;  State  v.  Halliday,  63  Ohio 
St.  165,  57  N.  E.  1097;  Bird  v.  Wasco 
County,  3  Ore.  284;  Grant  County 
v.  Sels,  5  Ore.  243;  Hurst  v.  Hawn. 
5  Ore.  275;  Strickland  v.  Geide,  31 
Ore.  373,  49  Pac.  982;  Reed  v.  Dun- 
bar, 41  Ore.  509.  69  Pac.  451;  Egypt 
Street,  2  Grant's  Cas.  455;  South- 
wark  Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  26 
Pa.  St.  446;  Frown's  Estate,  152 
Pa.  St.  401,  25  Atl.  630;  Sr>eer  v. 
Boggs,  204  Pa.  St,  504:  State  v. 
Wilbor,  1  R.  1.  199:  Busby  v.  Riley. 
<3  S.  D.  401,  61  N.  W.  164;  Furman 
v.  Nichol,  3  Cold.  432;  Browning  v. 
Jones.  4  Humph.  69;  Hockaday  v. 
Wi'son,  1  Head,  113;  Wilcox  v. 
State,  3  Heisk.  110;  White  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Heisk.  518; 
Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Taxing  District,  4 
Lea,  644;  Brown  v.  Chancellor,  61 
Tex.  437;  Fayette  County  v.  Fa  ires, 
44  Tex.  514:  Wood  v.  United  States, 
16  Pet.  342,  10  L.  Ed.  987;  Beals  v. 
Hale,  4  How.  37,  11  L.  Ed.  865; 
United  States  v.  Sixty-seven  Pack- 
ages, 17  How.  85,  15  L.  Ed.  54; 
United  States  v.  Walker,  23  How. 
299,  16  L.  Ed.  382;  McCool  v.  Smith, 
1  Black,  459,  17  L.  Ed.  218;  Galena 
v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  705,  18  L.  Ed.  560: 
Furman  v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.  49,  19  L. 


Ed.  370;  Distilled  Spirits,  11  Wall 
356,  20  L.  Ed.  167;  Supervisors  v 
Lackawana  I.  &  C.  Co.,  93  U.  S 
619,  23  L.  Ed.  989:  Movius  v.  Ar- 
thur. 95  U.  S.  144.  24  L.  Ed.  420; 
Arthur  v.  Homer,  96  U.  S.  137,  24 
L.  Ed.  811;  Clay  County  v.  Society 
for  Savings,  104  U.  S.  579,  26  L.  Ed. 
856;  Red  Rock  v.  Henry,  106  U.  S. 
596,  1  S.  C.  Rep.  434.  27  L.  Ed.  251: 
Ex  parte  Crow  Dog,  109  U.  S.  556, 
3  S.  C.  Rep.  396,  27  L.  Ed.  1030;  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  v.  Hutton,  143 
U.  S.  18,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  369,  36  L.  Ed. 
60;  United  States  v.  One  Hundred 
Barrels  of  Spirits,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.) 
305,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,948;  Johnson 
v.  Byrd,  Hempst.  434,  Fed.  Cas  No. 
7076;  Woods  v.  Jackson  Co.,  1 
Holmes,  379,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,983; 
Forqueran  v.  Donnally,  7  W.  Va. 
114;  Smith  v.  Hickman,  Cooke,  330; 
Rex  v.  Middlesex,  1  Dow.  P.  C. 
117;  O'Flaherty  v.  Macdowell,  6 
H.  L.  Cas.  142;  Sharp  v.  Warren, 
6  Price,  131;  Dobbs  v.  Grand  Junc- 
tion W.  W.,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  D.  158. 

The  following  cases  illustrate  the 
same  point.  In  each  case  there  was 
held  to  be  a  repeal  by  implication, 
but  the  question  was  of  minor  im- 
portance in  the  case  or  received 
but  little  consideration:  Zaner  v 
State,  90  Ala.  651,  8  So.  698;  White 
v.  Burgin,  113  Ala.  170,  21  So.  832 
Hubman  v.  State,  61  Ark.  482,  33  S 
W.  843;  Hogane  v.  Hogane,  57  Ark, 
508,  22  S.  W.  167;  People  v.  Supe- 
rior Ct.,  100  Cal.  105,  34  Pac.  492 
Davis  v.  Post,  125  Cal.  210,  57  Pac 


Kl  l-i   \ :  s    ami    i;i  v\  w  [NG    ACIS. 


g<  th  The  intention  to  repeal,  however,  will  not  be  pre- 

sumed, nor  the  effeot  of  repeal  admitted,  unless  the  incon- 
ncj  is  onavoidable,  and  only  to  the  extent  of  the  repug- 
nant 


Cook  Canity  v.  Chicago,  1G7 
III.  109,  47  N.  E.  210;  People  v. 
Yancey,  167  IIL  255,  -17  N.  E.  521: 
In  Matter  of  Christian  Busse,  80 
111.  App  261;  Garrigus  v.  Commis- 
sioners, 157  Ind.  108,  GO  N.  E.  048; 
1  lat  Bock  v.  Rust,  18  Ind.  App  282, 
7    X.    1..    934;    Commonwealth   v. 

haw,  92  By.  485,  17  S.  W.  737; 

'.nor  v.  Commissioners,  61 
Minn.  370.  G3  N.  W.  1025;  Merri- 
man  v.  Great  Northern  Express  Co., 

an.  543,  65  N.  W.  1080;  Gibbs 

uthera,  116  Mo.  201.  22  s.  W. 
713;  Kennedy  v.  Savage,  18  Mont, 
119,  44  Pac  400;  Davis  v.  Davis,  27 
Neb.  859,  44  N.  \Y.  40;  Van  Sir,  a  v. 
21,54  N.  W.677; 
midt  v.  Lewis.  G3  N.  J.  Eq.  565, 
v.1  Atl.  707;  Tomlin  v.  Hildreth,  65 
N.  J.  L.  438,  47  Atl.  649;   Levy  v. 

a,  9  N.  M.  3'Jl,  54  Pac.  344; 
Howard  v.  Clatsop  County.  41  Ore. 
149,  68  Pac  425;  Advance  Thresher 
Co.  v.  11  Ore.  469,  69  Pac. 

447;  Board  of  Education  v.  Haral- 

.  OkL  170,  37  Pac.  1063;  Phila- 
delphia  v.  Kates,  150  Pa.  St.  30,  24 
Atl.  673;  Smith  v.  Wehrly,  157  Pa. 
'7.  27  Atl.  700;  Commonwealth 
v.  Railway  Co.,  1G2  Pa.  St.  614.  29 
At!.  G96;  Commonwealth  v.  Weir, 
165  Pa.  St  284,  30  Atl.  835;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Schneipp.  166  Pa.  St. 
401,  31  Atl.  118;  Chester  v.  Pennell, 
169  Pa.  St.  300,  32  Atl.  408;  Hays  v. 
Cumberland  County,  186  Pa.  St. 
109,  40  Atl.  282;  Phi'adelphia  &  R, 

I.  Co.'s  Petition,  200  Pa.  St. 

19  Atl.  797;  Frederick  Street, 

1  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  283;  Erliard  v.  Clear- 


field Coal  Co.,  5  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  611; 
Clark  v.  Koplin,  6  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  462; 
Uhler  v.  Moses,  10  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  194; 
Memphis  v.  Memphis  Sav.  Bank,  99 
Tenn.  104,  42  S.  W.  16;  McCornick 
v.  Thatcher,  8  Utah,  294,  80  Pac.  91 ; 
Taylor  v.  Robertson,  16  Utah,  330, 
52  Pac.  1;  Dalil  v.  Tibbals,  5  Wash. 
259,  31  Pac.  86S;  Mansfield  v.  First 
Nat.  Bank,  5  Wash.  665,  32  Pac.  789, 
999;  State  v.  Rusk,  15  Wash.  403,  46 
Pac.  3S7;  State  v.  Cheethaiu,  17 
Wash.  483,  49  Pac  1072;  Yarwood 
v.  Bappy,  18  Wash.  246,  51  Par. 
Dennis  v.  Moses,  18  Wash.  537,  52 
Pac.  333,  40  L,  R,  A.  302;  Se 
v.  Clark.  28  Wash.  717,  69  Pac.  407; 
Fisk  v.  Henarie,  142  U.  S.  459.  12 
S.  Q  Rep.  207,  35  L.  Ed.  1080;  Urn- 
rietta  Min.  &  M.  Co.  v.  Gardner. 
173  U.  S.  123,  19  S.  C.  Rep.  327.  43 
L.  Ed.  637;  Minnehaha  County  v. 
Champion,  5  Dak.  433,  41  N.  W.  754. 

37  Re  Hickory  Tree  Road,  43  Pa. 
St.  139,  142;  People  v.  Burt.  43  Cal. 
560;  Morrall  v.  Sutton,  11  Phil.  533; 
Commercial  Bank  of  Natchez  v. 
Chambers,  8  Sm.  &  M.  9;  Constan- 
tine  v.  Constantine,  6  Ves.  100; 
Brown  v.  Great  W.  Ry.  Co.,  9  Q.  B. 
D.  753;  Co.  Lit.  112.  The  adoption 
of  a  treaty  with  the  stipulations  of 
which  the  provisions  of  a  state  law 
are  inconsistent  is  equivalent  to 
the  repeal  of  such.  law.  Denn  ex 
demise  Fisher  v.  Harnden,  1  Paine, 
55,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4819.  The  repeal  of 
an  act  effects  also  a  repeal  of  an  act 
amendatory  of  the  act  repealed. 
Hemstrat  v.  Wassum,  49  Cal.  273. 

38  Williams  v.  People,  132  111.  574, 


EEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  4G5 

In  TVinslow  v.  Morton39  the  court  suras  up  the  general 
principles  touching  implied  repeals  in  the  form  of  rules 
which  it  formulates  as  follows: 

(1)  "  That  the  law  does  not  favor  a  repeal  of  an  older 
statute  by  a  later  one  by  mere  implication." 

(2)  "  The  implication,  in  order  to  be  operative,  must  be 
necessary,  and  if  it  arises  out  of  repugnancy  between  the 
two  acts,  the  later  abrogates  the  older  only  to  the  extent  that 
it  is  inconsistent  and  irreconcilable  with  it.  A  later  and  an 
older  statute  will,  if  it  is  possible  and  reasonable  to  do  so,  be 
always  construed  together,  so  as  to  give  effect  not  only  to  the 
d  istinct  parts  or  provisions  of  the  latter,  not  inconsistent  with 
the  new  law,  but  to  give  effect  to  the  older  law  as  a  whole, 
subject  only  to  restrictions  or  modifications  of  its  meaning, 
when  such  seems  to  have  been  the  legislative  purpose.  A 
law  will  not  be  deemed  repealed  because  some  of  its  provis- 
ions are  repeated  in  a  subsequent  statute,  except  in  so  far 
as  the  latter  plainly  appears  to  have  been  intended  by  the 
legislature  as  a  substitute." 

(3)  "  Where  the  later  or  revising  statute  clearly  covers 
the  whole  subject-matter  of  antecedent  acts,  and  it  plainly 
appears  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  legislature  to  give 
expression  in  it  to  the  whole  law  on  the  subject,  the  latter 
is  held  to  be  repealed  by  necessary  implication." 

Eepeals  by  implication  are  not  favored.40  This  means 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  so  construe  the  acts,  if 

24    N.   E.   647;    McCarthy  v.   Mo-  900;  Hilton  v.  Curry,  124  Cal.  84, 

Carthy,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)195;Mc-  56  Pac.  784;  Ex  parte  Dolan,  128 

Connell's  Estate,  5  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  120.  Cal.  460,  60  Pac.   1094;   People  v. 

39 118  N.  C.  486,  491,  492,  24  S.  E.  Pacific  Imp.  Co.,  130  Cal.  442,  62 

417.  Pac.  739;  McCarthy  v.  McCarthy, 

«»  Kinney  v.  Mallory,  3  Ala.  626;  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  195;  Morris  v. 

Cook  v.  Meyer  Bros.,  73  Ala.  580;  Hitchcock,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)565; 

Jackson  v.  State,  76  Ala.  26;  Herr  Montgomery  v.  Board  of    Educa- 

v.  Seymour,  76  Ala.  270;  Abernathy  tion,  71  Ga.  41;  Central  R.  R  Co.  v. 

v.  State,  78   Ala.  411;   Gilmore  v.  Hamilton,  71   Ga.   461;   Jensen  v. 

State,  125  Ala.  59,  28  So.  382;  State  Fricke,  133  111.  171,  24  N.  E.  515; 

v.  Watts,   23   Ark.  304;   Banks  v.  Cook  County  v.  Gilbert,  146  111.  268, 

Yolo  County,  104  Cal.  258,  37  Pac.  33  N.  E  761;  Trausch  v.  Cook 
30 


i:i  it.  \i.s    ami    1:1  ri  \u\<;    A.0T8. 


ble5  that  both  shall  be  operative.41  "When  some  office 
or  function  can  by  fair  construction  be  assigned  to  both  acts, 
and  they  confer  different  powers  to  be  exercised  for  differ- 
ent purposes,  both  must  stand,  though  they  were  designed 

County,  147  III.  534,  85  N.  K.  177; 
Rich  v.  Chioago,  153  IE  18, 88  >■.  B 
le  v.   Raymond,    186  111. 
57  N.  K.  1086;  Quinoyv.  O'Brien, 
24  111.  App.  591;  Reese  v.  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co..  123  Ind.  29-1.  24  N. 
EL  163,  7  I-  R  A.  588;  Central  Iowa 
Ry.  Co.  v.  Supervisors,  67  Iowa,  199, 
ambe  v.  Mc<  !ormick, 
116  Iowa,   169,  89  N.  W.  241;  Ste- 
phens v.  Ballou,  27  Kan.  594;  Kan- 
Baa  City  v.  Kimball,  60  Kan.  224,56 
Pac.  78;  Randall  v.  Butler  County, 
65  Kan.  20,  68  Pac.  1083;  Elizabeth- 
town,  etc.  R  R  Co.  v.  Elizabeth- 
town,   12    Busb,  233:    Saul    v.    His 
it<  re,  5  Martin  (N.  S.),  569,  16 
Am.    Dec    212;   Herbert's  Succes- 
sion,  5   La.    Ann.    121;   Desban  v. 
It.  16  La.  Ann.  350;  Nixon  v. 
Piffet,  16  La.   Ann   379;  Collins  v. 
Chase.  71    Ale.  434;  Dugan  v.  Git- 
tings,  3  Gill,  138;  Higgins  v.  State, 
64  Md.  419,  1  Atl.  876;  Drown  v.  Mc- 
lick,  28  Mich.  215:  Breitung  v. 
Lindauer,   37    Mich.    217;    Ryan's 
Mich.   173,  7  N.  W.  819; 
State  v.  McCurdy,  62  Minn.  509,  64 
X.  W.   1133;   Beck  v.  St.  Paul,  87 
Minn.  381,  92  N.  W.  328;  State  v. 
:l   Mo.  10,  31  S.  W.  1054, 
-    \Y.  1102;  Dawson  County  v. 
-     reb.  756,  79  N.  W.  822; 
Williams  v.  Potter,  2    Barb.  316; 
Van  Renssalaer  v.  Snyder,  9  Barb. 
People  v.  Deming,  1  Hilt. 
271;   Dowen  v.  Lease,  5  Hill,  221; 
State  v.  Monger,  111  N.  C.  675,  16 


S.  E.  229;  Waloottv.  Skauge,  6  N. 
J).  382,  71  N.  \V.  511;  Ex  parte  Van 
Hagan,  25  Ohio  St.  426;  Winters  v. 
George,  21  Ore.  251,  27  Pac.   mil; 
Ladd  v.  Gambell,  35  Ore.  39:;,  59 
l'ac.  113;  Street  v.  Commonwealth, 
6  W.   &  S.  209;  Brown  v.  County 
Com'rs,    21    Pa.    St.    37;     Hanover 
Borough's  Appeal,  150  Pa.  St.  202, 
24  Atl.  669;  Commonwealth  v.  De 
Camp,  177  Pa.  St.  112,  35  Atl.  601; 
State  v.  Alexander,  14  Rich.  247; 
Ball  v.  Kirk,  37  S.  C.  395,  16  S.  E. 
151;  State  v.  Beaufort,  39  S.  C.  5, 
17  S.  E.  355;  Co-Operative  S.  &  L. 
Ass'n  v.  Fawick,  11  S.  D.  589,  79  N. 
W.    847;    Hockaday    v.   Wilson,   1 
Head,  113;  Gate  v.  State,  3  Sneed, 
120;  State  v.  King,  104  Tenn.  156, 
57  S.  W.  150;  Zickler  v.  Union  Bank 
&  T.  Co.,  104  Tenn.  277,  57  S.  W.  341 ; 
Matter  of  Gannett,  11  Utah,  283, 
39  Pac.  496;  Davis  v.  Creighton,  33 
Gratt   696;    Somers  v.    Common- 
wealth, 97  Va.  759,  33  S.   E.  384; 
Augusta  Nat.  Bank  v.  Beard,  100 
Va.  687,  42  S.  E.  694;  Harford  v. 
United  States,  8  Cranch,  109,  3  L. 
Ed.  504;  Wood  v.  United  States,  16 
Pet.  342,  10  L.  Ed.  987;  Arthur  v. 
]  [omer,  96  U  S.  137,  24  L.  Ed.  811; 
Red  Rock  v.  Henry,  106  U.  S.  596. 
1   S.   C.  Rep.   434,  27   L.   Ed.   251; 
Chew  Heoug  v.  United  States,  112 
U.  S.  536,  5  S.  C.  Rep.  255,  28  L.  Ed. 
770;  Tracy  v.  Tuffly,  134  U.  S.  206, 
10  S.   C.  Rep.  527,  33  L  Ed.  879; 
Cope  v.  Cope,  137  U.  S.  682, 11  S.  C. 


«1  State  v.  Dupuis,  18  Ore.  372,  23  Pac.  255. 


KEPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


467 


to  operate  upon  the  same  general  subject."42  "Considera- 
tions of  convenience,  justice  and  reasonableness,  when  they 
can  be  invoked  against  the  implication  of  repeal,  are  always 
very  potent."43  "There  must  be  such  a  manifest  and  total 
repugnance  that  the  two  enactments  cannot  stand." 44  "  The 
earliest  statute  continues  in  force  unless  the  two  are  clearly 
inconsistent  with  and  repugnant  to  each  other,  or  unless  in 
the  later  statute  some  express  notice  is  taken  of  the  former 
plainly  indicating  an  intention  to  repeal  it;  and  where  two 
acts  are  seemingly  repugnant,  they  should,  if  possible,  be  so 
construed  that  the  latter  may  not  operate  as  a  repeal  of  the 
former  by  implication."4''  These  expressions  of  opinion  are 
supported  by  numerous  cases.46 


Rep.  222,  34  L.  Ed.  832;  Frost  v. 
Wenie,  157  U.  S.  46,  15  S.  C.  Rep. 
532,  39  L.  Ed.  614;  United  States  v. 
Greathouse,  166  U.  S.  601,  17  S.  C. 
701,  41  L.  Ed.  1130:  Smith  v.  Hick- 
man, Cooke,  147;  United  States  v. 
Twenty-five  Cases  of  Cloth,  Crabbe, 
356,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,563;  Regina  v. 
Inhabitants,  2  Q.  B.  84. 

42  Woods  v.  Supervisors,  136  N.Y. 
403,  409,  32  N.  E.  1011. 

4a  State  v.  McCurdy,  62  Minn. 
509,  64  N.  W.  1133. 

44 Commonwealth  v.  De  Camp, 
177  Pa.  St.  112,  35  Atl.  601. 

«  People  v.  Raymond,  186  111.  407, 
57  N.  E.  1066. 

46  The  following  are  some  of  the 
more  important  cases:  City  Coun- 
cil v.  National  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  108 
Ala.  336,  18  So.  816;  People  v.  Pa- 
cific Imp.  Co.,  130  Cal.  442,  62  Pac 
739;  Lovelace  v.  Tabor  Mines  & 
Mills  Co.,  29  Colo.  62,  66  Pac.  892; 
McCarthy  v.  McCarthy,  20  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)195;  Jensen  v.  Fricke, 
133  111.  171,  24  N.  E.  515;  Cook 
County  v.  Gilbert,  146  111.  268,  33 
N.  E.  761;  Trausch  v.  Cook  County, 


147  111.  534,  35  N.  E.  477;  Rich  v. 
Chicago,  152  111.  18,  38  N.  E.  255; 
People  v.  Thornton,  186  111.  162,  57 
N.  E.  841;  Kern  v.  People,  44  111. 
App.  181;  People  v.  Mount.  87  111. 
App.  194;  S.  C.  affirmed.  186  111. 
560;  Reese  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  123  Ind.  294,  24  N.  E.  163,  7  L. 
R.  A.  583;  Shea  v.  Muncie,  148  Ind. 
14,  46  N.  E.  138;  State  v.  Van  Vliet, 
92  Iowa,  476,  61  N.  W.  241 ;  Lambe  v. 
McCormick,  116  Iowa,  169,  89  N.  W. 
241;  Kansas  City  v.  Kimball,  60 
Kan.  224,  56  Pac.  78;  Randall  v. 
Butler  County,  65  Kan.  20,  68  Pac. 
1083;  State  v.  Casimere,  43  La.  Ann. 
442,  9  So.  438;  Moore  v.  Minneapo- 
lis, 43  Minn.  418,  45  N.W.  719;  State 
v.  McCurdy,  62  Minn.  509,  64  N.  W. 
1133;  State  v.  Stratton,  136  Mo.  423, 
38  S.  W.  83;  Reinhardt  v.  Fritz- 
oche,  69  Hun,  565,  23  N.  Y.  S.  958; 
Ackerson  v.  Supervisors,  72  Hun, 
616, 25  N.  Y.  S.  196;  People  v.  House 
of  Refuge,  22  App.  Div.  254,  47  N. 
Y.  S.  767;  Winslow  v.  Morton,  118 
N.  C.  486,  24  S.  E.  417;  Pease  v. 
Ryan,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  44;  Winters  v. 
George,  21    Ore.  251,  27  Pac.  1041; 


REPEALS    ANH    REPEALING    ACTS. 


One  statute  is  no1  repugnant  to  another  unless  they  relate 
to  the  Bame  subject  and  are  enacted  for  the  same  purpose17 
"It  is  not  enough  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  differ- 
ent parts  oi  a  system  of  legislation  on  the  same  general  sub- 


Co-operative  S.  >v  I.  Co.  v.  Fawick, 

1 1.  589,  79   N.  W.  847;  Matter 
annett,  11    Utah,  388,  39 

University  of  Utah  v.  Rich- 
ards, 30  Utah.  157,  59  Pac,  96,  77 
Am.  st.  Rep  938;    Frost  v.  Wenie, 

.  S.  46,  1".  S.  C.  Rep.  532,  39  L. 
Ed.  014- 

In  the  following  cases  the  ques- 
tion was  a  less  important  factor, 
but  in  each  one  the  statutes  in 
question  wi  re  reconciled  and  there 
was  held  to  be  no  repeal  by  im- 
plication: State  v.  Styles,  121  Ala. 
363,  25  So.  1015;  Johnson  v.  State, 
\la  43,  31  So.  493;  Capron  v. 
Hitchcock,  98  Cal.  437,  33  Pac.431; 
Malone  v.  Bosch,  104  Cal.  680,  38 
Pac.      516;      Nickey     v.     Stearns 

lies  Co.,  126  Cal.  150,  58  Pac. 
459;  Santa  Cruz  Rock  Pa  v.  Co.  v. 
Lyons,  133  Cal.  Ill,  65  Pac,  329; 
Katlivon  v.  White,  16  Colo.  41,  26 
Pac  323;  Canfield  v.  Leadville,  7 
Colo.  App.  453,  43  Pac.  910;  Win- 
<lom  County  Sav.  Bank  v.  Himes, 
55  Conn.  433,  12  Atl.  517;  Bissell  v. 
Dickerson,  64  Conn.  61,  29  Atl.  226; 
Gilbert  v.  Morgan,  18  D.  C.  Rep 
.7  Mackey),  290;  Hope  v.  Johnston, 
la  55,  9  So.  830;  Ex  parte  Pells, 

a,  07,  9  So.  833;  Tampa  v.  Solo- 

monson.  35  Fla  446,  482.  17  So.  581; 

Georgia  Southern  &  Fla  R.  R,  Co. 

,  92  Ga.  760,  19  S.  E  813; 

Wilder's  Sons  Co.  v.  Walker,  98  Ga 

.5  S.  K.  571;  National  Bank  of 
Augusta  v.  Augusta  Cotton  Corap. 


Co.,  104  Ga.  403,  30  S.  E.  888;  Hart- 
ford Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Peoria,  156 
111.  420,  40  N.  E.  967;  Canal  Com'rs 
v.  sanitary  Dist.,  191  111.  326,  61  N. 
E.  71;  Johnson  v.  People,  202  III. 
5:;.  66  N.  E.  877;  Neatherly  v.  Peo- 
ple, 24  111.  App.  273;  Swigart  v. 
e,  50  111.  App.  181;  S.  C. 
affirmed,  154  111.  284;  McGillen  v. 
Wolff,  83  III.  App.  227;  White  v. 
Wagar,  83  111.  App  592:  S.  C  af- 
firmed,  185  111.  195;  Bridge  & 
Structural  Iron  Works  Union  v. 
Sigmund.SS  111.  App.  344;  Leeschke 
v.  Miller,  100  111.  App.  187;  Allen 
v.  Salem.  10  Ind.  App.  050.  38  N.  E. 
425;  Indianapolis  v.  Morris.  25  hid. 
App.  409,  58  N.  E.  510;  Cedar  Ra- 
pids, L  F.  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Elseffer,  84  Iowa,  510,  51  N.  W.  27; 
Sherman  v.  Des  Moines,  100  Iowa, 
88,  69  N.  W.410;  Kansas  Breeze  Co. 
v.  Edwards,  55  Kan.  630,  40  Pac. 
1004;  Adam  v.  Stephens,  88  Ky. 
443,  11  S.  W.  427;  Commonwealth 
v.  Pulaski  County,  92  Ky.  197,  17 
S.  W.  442;  Farson  v.  Board  of 
ComTS,  97  Ky.  119,  30  S.  W.  17; 
OMahoney  v.  Bullock,  97  Ky.  774, 31 
S.  W.  878;  Commonwealth  v.  Ba- 
sham,  101  Ky.  170, 40  S.  W.  253;  Fidel- 
ity &  Dep.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
lol  Ky.  579,  49  S.  W.  407;  Rauhold  v. 
<  lommonwealth,  21  Ky.  L.  R.  1125, 
51  S.  W.  17;  Murphy  v.  Louisville, 
24  Ky.  L.  R.  1574,  71  S.  W.  934; 
Kirk  v.  Robison,  25  Ky.  L.  R,  1633; 
State  v.  Police  Jury,  45  La  Ann. 


«  Pi  ople  v.  Burtleson,  14  Utah,  258,  47  Pac.  87. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING   ACTS. 


469 


ject;  there  must  be  a  conflict  between  different  acts  on  the 
same  specific  subject." 48  When  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
whole  purview  of  two  statutes  apparently  relating  to  the 
same  subject,  the  former  is  not  repealed.49     Such  is  the  gen- 


249,  11  So.  948;  Portland  R  R  Ex- 
tension Co.,  Appellants,  94  Me.  565, 
48  Atl.  119;  Gans  v.  Carter,  77  Md. 
1,  25  Atl.  663;  Frostburg  Min.  Co. 
v.  Cumberland,  etc.  R  R  Co.,  81 
Md.  28,  31  Atl.  698;  Lake  Superior 
Ship  Canal,  Ry.  &  I.  Co.  v.  Aplin, 
79  Mich.  351,  44  N.  W.  616;  Dowl- 
ing  v.  Salliotte,  83  Mich.  131,  47  N. 
W.  225;  Merriman  v.  Peck,  96 
Mich.  603,  53  N.  W.  1021 ;  People  v. 
Kinney,  110  Mich.  97.  67  N.  W.  1089; 
Wayne  County  Sup'rs  v.  Circuit 
Judge,  111  Mich.  33,  69  N.  W.  83; 
Crane  v.  Circuit  Judge,  111  Mich. 
496,  69  N.  W.  721;  People  v. 
Huntley,  112  Mich.  569,  71  N.  W. 
178;  In  re  Bushey,  105  Mich.  64,62 
N.  W.  1036;  State  v.  Rieger,  59 
Minn.  151,  60  N.  W.  1087;  State  v. 
Anderson.  63  Minn.  208,  65  N.  W. 
265;  Brown  v.  Heron  Lake,  67 
Minn.  146,  69  N.  W.  710;  State  v. 
Holt,  69  Minn.  423,  72  N.  W.  700; 
Kretzschmar  v.  Meehan,  74  Minn. 
211,  74  N.  W.  41;  Louisville,  N.  O. 
&  Tex.  Ry.  Co.  v.  State,  66  Miss. 
662,  6  So.  203,  14  Am.  St.  Rep.  599, 
5  L.  R  A.  132;  Jones  v.  Melchior, 
71  Miss.  115,  13  So.  857;  Kansas 
City  v.  Smart,  128  Mo.  272,  30  S.  "W. 
773;  State  v.  Summers,  142  Mo.  586, 
44  S.  W.  797;  Albany  v.  Gilbert, 
144  Mo.  224,  46  S.  W.  157;  Boone 


Co.  Home  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Anthony, 
68  Mo.  App.  424;  Kirkpatrick  v. 
Mo.,  K  &  T.  Ry.  Co.,  71  Mo.  App.  263; 
Springfield  v.  Hubbel,  89  Mo.  App. 
379;  Lamar  v.  Adams,  90  Mo.  App. 
35;  Chadwick  v.  Tatem,  9  Mont. 
354,  368,  23  Pac.  729;  In  re  Board  of 
Pub.  Lands  &  Buildings,  37  Neb. 
425,  55  N.  W.  1092;  Hopkins  v. 
Scott,  38  Neb.  661,  57  N.  W.  391; 
Holt  Co.  Bank  v.  Holt  County,  53 
Neb.  827,  74  N.  W.  259;  State  v. 
Cobb,  44  Neb.  434,  62  N.  W.  867; 
Beatrice  Paper  Co.  v.  Beloit  Iron 
Works,  46  Neb.  900,  65  N.  W.  1059; 
Rhea  v.  State,  63  Neb.  461,  88  N.  W. 
789;  State  v.  Donnelly,  20Nev.214, 
19  Pac.  680;  State  v.  Tyrrell,  22 
Nev.  421,  41  Pac.  145;  School  Dis- 
trict v.  Prentiss,  66 N.  H  145, 20  Atl. 
931;  Newark  v.  Mount  Pleasant 
Cem.  Co.,  58  N.  J.  L  168,  33  Atl. 
396;  Bush  v.  Del.,  L.  &  W,  R  R  Co., 
166  N.  Y.  210.  59  N.  E.  838;  Quinn 
v.  New  York,  68  App.  Div.  175,  74 
N.  Y.  S.  89;  People  v.  Pugh,  57  Hun, 
181,  10  N.  Y.  S.  684;  People  v.  Vos- 
burgh,  76  Hun,  562, 28  N.  Y.  S.  208; 
State  v.  Columbia  George,  39  Ore. 
127,  65  Pac.  604;  Win.  Wilson  & 
Son's  Silversmith  Co/s  Estate,  150 
Pa.  St.  285,  24  Atl.  636;  Ferguson 
v.  Pittsburgh,  159  Pa.  St.  435, 28  Atl. 
118;    Hampe  v.  Traction   Co.,  165 


« Commonwealth   v.   De   Camp,  546,24  L.  Ed.  1082:  United  States 

177  Pa.  St.  112,  116,  35  Atl.  601.  v.  Gear,  3  How.  120,  11  L  Ed.  523, 

«  The  King  v.  Downs,  3  T.  R  569;  838;  Miller  v.  Edwards,  8  Colo.  528, 

Bowen   v.  Lease,  5  Hill,  221.  225;  9  Pac.  632. 
United  States  v.  Claflin,  97  U.  S. 


470 


REPE  \l  S    AM)    REP]  &.LING     iOTS. 


oral  dootrine,  in  which  all  the  cases  concur.  In  its  practical 
administration  other  rules  obtain  suggested  by  the  nature 
<>i  the  cases  whioh  ooour,  and  the  forms  of  legislation  rais- 
ing the  question  of  repeal.  There  is  an  obvious  difference 
in  repealing  effect  between  negative  and  affirmative  stat- 
utes.    We  will  endeavor  to  elucidate  this  distinction. 

^  CIS  (139).  Negative  and  affirmative  statutes. — A  neg- 
ative statute  is  one  expressed  in  negative  words;  as,  for  ex- 
ample: " X<>  jh  rson  who  is  charged  with  an  oflense  against 
the  law  shall  be  punished  for  such  offense  unless  he  shall 
have  be. -n  duly  and  legally  convicted,"  etc.  "No  indict- 
ment for  anv  otfense  shall  be  held  insufficient  for  want  of 


Pa.  St.  4GS,  30  Atl.  931;  Plymouth 
Borough,  107  Pa.  St.  612,  31  Atl. 
Kuhlman  v.  Smoltz,  171  Pa.  St. 
4!(),  33  AtL  358;  Commonwealth  v. 
Lloyd,  178  Pa  St.  308,  35  Atl.  816; 
School  District  v.  Pittsburgh,  184 
Pa.  St.  156,  39  AtL  64;  Clarion  Bor- 
ough's  Appeal,  189  Pa.  St.  79,41  Atl. 
995;  Uhler  v.  Moses.  200  Pa.  St.  498, 
50  AtL  231;  Mellor  v.  Pittsburgh, 
201  Pa.  St.  397,  50  Atl.  1011;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Huffman,  6  Pa  Supr. 
Ct  211;  McHenry's  Petition,  6  Pa. 
Supr.  Ct.  464;  Denniston's  Appeal, 
8  Pa.  Snpr.  Ct.  212;  Marshall  v. 
Am.  Tel.  &Tel.  Co.,  16  Pa.  Supr.  Ct. 
615;  Kulp  v.  Luzerne  County,  20 
Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  7;  Roa'l  in  Green  & 
G.  Tps.,  -1  Pa  Supr.  Ct.  413;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Vt-tterlein,  21  Pa. 
Supr.  I  i.  587;  Blake  v.  Pittsburgh, 
etc  R.  B.  Co.,  11  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  151; 
McDonald  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R. 
1.  558  51  Atl.  578;  State 
v.  Beaufort,  39  s.  C.  5.  17  S.  E.  :;55; 
Heston  v.  Mayhew,  9  S.  D.  501,  TON. 
W.  635;  Durham  v.  State,  89Tenn. 
i  W.  7  1:  Tayfor  v.  Badoux, 
92  Tenn.  249,  21  S.  W.  522;  Har- 
rington   v.    Galveston,  1  Tex.  Ct. 


App.  437;  Aaron  v.  State,  34  Tex. 
Crim.  App.  108,29  S.  \Y.  267;  Braun 
v.  Stat.',  40  Tex.  Crim.  App,  236,  49 
S.  W.  620;  State  v.  Forest.  7  Wash. 
54,  33  Pac.  1079;  State  v.  Wilson,  9 
Wash.  218,  37  Pac.  424;  State  v. 
Fawcett,  17  Wash.  188,  49  Pac.  346; 
Statu  v.  Moyer,  17  Wash.  64:),  50 
Pac.  492;  State  v.  Richards,  76 
Wis.  354,  44  N.  W.  1104:  Haley  v. 
Jump  River  L.  Co.,  81  Wis.  412.  51 
N.  W.321;  State  v.  Common  Coun- 
cil, 96  Wis.  73,  71  N.  W.  86:  Vorous 
v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  102  Wis.  76,  78 
N.  W.  102;  State  v.  Owen,  7  Wyo. 
84,  50  Pac.  193;  Syndicate  Imp.  Co. 
v.  Bradley,  7  Wyo.  228,  51  Pac.  242, 
52  Pac.  532;  Standard  Cattle  Co. 
v.  Baird,  8  Wyo.  144,  56  Pac.  598; 
Fisk  v.  Henarie,  142  U.  S.  459,  12S. 
C.  Rep.  207,  35  L.  Ed.  1080;  North 
Am.  Trading  &  Trans.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  93  Fed.  7,  35  C.  C.  A.  183; 
Wetzel  v.  Paducah,  117  Fed.  647; 
Oldham  v.  Mayor,  102  Ala.  357,  14 
So.  793;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Cooke, 
3  Pa.  Supr.  278;  Debenture  Corpo- 
ration v.  Warren,  9  Wash.  312,  37 
Pac.  451. 


KErEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  471 

the  averment  of  any  matter  unnecessary  to  be  proved,"  etc. 
An  affirmative  statute  is  one  enacted  in  affirmative  terms. 
Alderson,  B.,  observed  in  Mayor  of  London  v.  The  Queen,50 
that  "  the  words  '  negative  '  and  '  affirmative '  statutes  mean 
nothing.  The  question  is  whether  they  are  repugnant  or 
not  to  that  which  before  existed.  That  may  be  more  easily 
shown  when  the  statute  is  negative  than  when  it  is  affirm- 
ative, but  the  question  is  the  same."  If  a  statute  contrary 
to  a  former  one  be  expressed  in  negative  words  it  operates 
to  repeal  the  former;  so  expressed  it  takes  away  any  differ- 
ent common-law  right  or  remedy.51  In  that  form  it  is  pro- 
hibitory and  generally  mandatory.52  An  act  providing  that 
"  no  corporation  "  shall  interpose  the  defense  of  usury  re- 
peals the  laws  against  usury  as  to  corporations.53  An  act 
that  "no  beer"  shall  be  sold  without  a  license  abrogates 
any  previous  exemptions  from  licensing  regulations.54  An 
act  which  absolutely  forbids  prize  fighting  repeals  a  prior 
act  which  permitted  a  prize  fight  on  the  payment  of  a  tax 
of  five  hundred  dollars.55 

The  repugnance  of  any  previous  statute  contrary  to  an 
enactment  in  negative  words  is  very  readily  seen.  ]^ot  so 
in  the  case  of  affirmative  statutes.  It  is  upon  such  enact- 
ments that  debatable  questions  of  repeal  more  frequently 
arise.     The  repeal  in  either  case  results  from  repugnancy, 

50 13  Q.  B.  33.  Clarke,  11  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  814.    "  Neg- 
61  Bac.  Abr.,  tit.  Statute,  G.  ative  statutes  are  mandatory,  and 
52  Hurford  v.  Omaha,  4  Neb.  336;  must  be  presumed  to  have  been  in- 
Bladen  v.  Philadelphia,  60  Pa.  St.  tended  as  a  repeal  of  all  conflicting 
464;  State   v.   Smith,  67  Me.   328;  provisions,  unless  the  contrary  can 
People  v.  Allen.  6  Wend.  486;  Koch  be  clearly  seen."    State  v.  Washoe 
v.   Bridges,   45  Miss.   247;   Rex  v.  Co.  Com'rs,  22  Nev.  203,  37  Pac.  486. 
Newcomb,  4  T.  R.  368;  Rex  v.  Lei-  53jBallston  Spa  Bank  v.  Marine 
cester,  9  D.  &  R.  772,  7  B.  &  C.  12;  Bank,  16  Wis.  120;  Curtiss  v.  Lea- 
Reg,  v.  Fordham,  11  A.  &  El.  73;  vitt,  15  N.  Y.  1,  85. 
Bowman  v.  Blyth,  7  EI.  &  Bl.  47;  64Read  v.  Storey,  6  H.  &  N.  423. 
/Williams  v.  Swansea  C.  Nav.  Co.,  See  Strauss  v.  Heiss,  48  Md.  292, 
L.  R.  3  Ex.  158;  Liverpool  Borough  55  Sullivan  v.  State,  32  Tex.  Crim. 
Bank  v.  Turner,  2  De  G.,  F.  &  J.  App.  50,  34  S.  W.  131. 
50-3;    Great  Central  Gas  C.  Co.  v. 


1  T8  Kl   IT  A  I  B     AMI     RSPE  \  I.I  NO     At    IS. 

but  this  is  not  bo  easily  perceived  when  the  repealing  stat- 
-  affirmative  in  form.  When  it  presoribesan  exclusive 
rul<>  it  implies  a  negative,  and  repeals  whatever  of  existing 
l;iw  stands  in  the  way  of  its  operation.88  The  intention  to 
make  the  enactment  exclusive  may  be  deduced  from  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  and  its  necessary  operation  in  com- 
parison with  the  necessary  effect  of  prior  laws.  A  statute 
in  derogation  of  an  existing  statute  will  be  strictly  con- 
strued in  consequence  of  implied  repeals  being  regarded 
with  disfavor." 

249  (140).  Repealing  effect  of  affirmative  statutes 
conferring  power  and  regulating  its  exercise. —  In  organ- 
izing the  powers  of  government  there  is  a  definite  and  pre- 
me  or  plan,  and  a  unity  and  singleness  of  means 
employed  to  carry  it  into  effect.  There  is  but  one  chief 
strate,  one  legislature,  one  judiciary.  There  is  but  one 
revenue  system,  one  police  system.  Public  duties  are  de- 
fined and  imposed  on  officers  designated  with  certainty, 
without  duplication  or  confusion,  except  by  inadvertence. 
The  exercise  of  power  by  one  over  another  must  be  author- 
ized by  law;  its  possession  and  scope  will  be  such  as  is 
granted;  when  granted,  if  the  mode  of  its  exercise  be  also 
prescribed,  it  must  be  followed.  In  the  grants,  and  in  the 
regulation  of  the  mode  of  exercise,  there  is  an  implied  neg- 
ative; an  implication  that  no  other  than  the  expressly 
granted  power  passes  b}'  the  grant;  that  it  is  to  be  exer- 
cised only  in  the  prescribed  mode.58     While  an  affirmative 

56 Ex   parte  Joffee,  46  Mo.  App.  3;57,  67  Am.  Dec.  246;  Schuyler  v. 

nheimer  v.  Di.st.  of  Co-  Mercer,  4  Gilm.  20:  Lock  v.  Miller, 

lumbia,  6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  108.  3  Stew.  &  Port.  13;  White  v.  John- 

57 Commonwealth    v.    Knapp,    9  son,  38  Miss.  OS;  Clarke  v.  State,  id. 

Pick.  4%:  State  v.  Norton,  33  N.  J.  261;  Williams  v.    Potter,   2  Barb. 

L.  33;  Melody  v.  Reab,  4  Mass.  471;  316;    Peyton  v.    Moseley,   3  T.  B. 

Dwelly    v.    Dwelly,    46    Me.    377;  Mon.    77,   80;    Street   v.   Cornmon- 

Burnside    v.    Whitney,   21    N.    Y.  wealth,  6  Watts  &  S.  209;  Morlot  v. 

•!  v.  Jenney,  15  Mass.  205;  Lawrence,  1  Blatch.  608,  Fed.  Cas. 

Wilbur    v.    Crane,    13    Pick.    284;  No.  9815. 

Bailey  v.  Bryan,  3  Jones  (N.  C),  58  People  v.  Mayor,  etc.  of  N.  Y., 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  473 

provision  in  one  statute  does  not  necessarily  negative  affirm- 
ative provisions  on  the  same  subject  in  the  same  or  other 
statutes,59  yet  affirmative  words  may  and  often  do  imply  a 
negative,  not  only  of  what  is  not  affirmed,  but  of  what  has 
been  previously  affirmed,  and  as  strongly  as  if  expressed. 
An  affirmative  enactment  of  a  new  rule  implies  a  negative 
of  whatever  is  not  included,  or  is  different;  and  if  by  the 
language  used  a  thing  is  limited  to  be  done  in  a  particular 
form  or  manner,  it  includes  a  negative  that  it  shall  not  be 
done  otherwise.60  An  intention  will  not  be  ascribed  to  the 
law-making  power  to  establish  conflicting  and  hostile  sys- 
tems upon  the  same  subject,  or  to  leave  in  force  provisions 
of  law  by  which  the  later  will  of  the  legislature  may  be 
thwarted  and  overthrown.  Such  a  result  would  render  leg- 
islation a  useless  and  idle  ceremony,  and  subject  the  law  to 
the  reproach  of  uncertainty  and  unintelligibility.61  An  act 
which  required  trustees  to  collect  debts  due  to  banks  whose 
charters  were  forfeited  will  be  repealed  by  a  later  act 
which  requires  the  trustees  to  sell  all  such  debts.62  If  there 
are  two  acts  for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  a  tax,  and 
by  one  a  notice  of  the  election  to  vote  it  must  be  posted 
ten  days,  and  published  two  weeks,  and  the  tax  is  not  to  ex- 
ceed one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  on  the  hundred  dollars,  and 
by  the  other   the  notice  is  posted  twenty  days,  and  pub- 

32  Barb.  102, 121;  State,  the  United  Watts,  351,  86  Am.  Dec.  185;  New 

R.   &  Can.  Co.  pros.,  v.  Commis-  Haven  v.  Whitney,  36  Conn.  373; 

sioner,  37  N.J.  L.  240;  Rex  v.  North-  Greensboro  v.  McAdoo,  112  N.  C. 

leach  &  W.  Road,  5  B.  &  Ad.  978;  359,  17  S.  E.  178. 

Janney  v.  Buell,  55  Ala.  408;  Lessee  59Plattsburg    v.    People's    Tele- 

of  Moore  v.  Vance,  1  Ohio,  1-10;  phone  Co.,  88  Mo.  App.  306. 

Phillips  v.  Ash,  63  Ala.  414;  Ex-  6«  Wells  v.  Supervisors,  102  XJ.  S. 

celsior  Petroleum  Co.  v.  Embury,  625,   26  L.    Ed.   122;    Chandler   v. 

67  Barb.  261;  Rochester  v.  Barnes,  Hanna,73  Ala.  390;  Ex  parte  Joffee, 

26  Barb.  657;  Johnston's  Estate,  33  46  Mo.  App.  360;  Webb  v.  Midway 

Pa.    St,     511;     Townsend's    Case,  Lumber  Co.,  68  Mo.  App.  546. 

Plowd.  113;  State,  N.  Hudson  Co.  61  Lyddy  v.  Long  Island  City,  104 

R.  R.  Co.  pros.,  v.  Kelley,  34  N.  J.  L.  N.  Y.  218,  10  N.  E.  155. 

75;  Evansville  v.  Bayard,  39  Ind.  62  Commercial  Bank  of  Natchez 

450;  North  Canal  St.  Road  Case,  10  v.  Chambers,  8  Sm.  &  M.  9. 


K  l  ri  A  I  -    AM'    REPEALING    ACTS. 

lished  tin-  ie  weeks,  and  the  rate  "!'  taxation  is  not  to  exceed 
seventy  rents  <>n  the  hundred  dollars,  the  two  acts  are  re- 
pugnant,  and  the  later  repeals  the  former/*3  An  act  pro- 
I  that  in  ease  of  land  damages  for  laying  out  roads,  the 
county  court  should  institute  and  prosecute  in  their  names, 
in  the  oircuit  court,  proceedings  to  ascertain  the  just  com- 
pensation to  be  paid.  It  was  held  to  be  inconsistent  with 
and  to  repeal  a  prior  statute  which,  in  snch  cases,  required 
that  the  county  court  award  a  writ  of  ad  quod  damnum  re- 
turnable to  itself.64  Two  acts  related  to  the  same  subject- 
matter,  the  ferries  of  New  York;  the  former  to  the  ferries 
to  Long  Island,  and  the  latter  to  all  the  New  York  ferries. 
They  provided  different  and  inconsistent  modes  of  leasing 
or  licensing  the  same.  The  last  prevailed,  displacing  the 
other/'5  An  act  granting  the  exclusive  right  to  construct 
and  use  street  railroads  in  all  the  streets  of  a  city  will  re- 
peal a  prior  act  of  the  same  tenor.66  If  two  independent 
officers  or  public  boards  have  each  power  to  number  and 
alter  the  numbers  of  houses  in  a  city,  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
tinguishing them,  the  purpose  would  be  frustrated  by  the 
duplication  if  both  could  act;  therefore  the  power  last 
"ranted  was  held  exclusive.67 

A  statute  creating  a  board  of  public  works  for  cities  of 
the  first  class  and  conferring  powers  on  such  boards  im- 
pliedly repeals  so  much  of  former  statutes  as  confers  the 
same  powers  upon  the  city  councils.71  And  generally  an 
act  vesting  the  control  of  a  thing  in  one  body  or  board  is 
repealed  by  a  subsequent  act  vesting  the  same  control  in 
another  body  or  board.72  An  act  vesting  in  a  court  the 
power  to  change  the  name  of  any  corporation  was  held  to 

63  People  v.  Burt,  43  Cal.  5G0 :  State  67  Daw  v.  Metropolitan  Board,  12 

v.  Newark,  28  N.  J.  L,  491;  Bowen  C.  B.  (N.  S)  101. 

v.  Leav,  5  II ill,  221.  71  Nelden   v.  Clark,  20  Utah,  382, 

«  Herron  v.  Carson,  26  W.  Va.  62.  59  Pac.  524,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  917. 

«'<  People  v.  Mayor,  etc.  of  N.  Y.,  "2  Hawkins  v.   Roberts,  122  Ala. 

Barb.  102,  121.  130,    27    So.    327;     Sinking    Fund 

End,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  At-  Com'ra  v.  George,  104  Ky.  260,  47 

lanta  St  R.  R.  Co.,  49  Ga.  151.  S.  W.  779,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  454. 


KEPEALS    AND   EEPEALING    ACTS.  475 

be  repealed  by  a  subsequent  law  authorizing  the  governor 
to  improve,  amend  or  alter  the  articles  or  conditions  of  any 
charter."  Two  acts  providing  for  the  drainage  of  swamp 
and  low  lands  b}^  different  methods  may  co-exist;74  so  of 
two  laws  providing  for  different  modes  of  service  of 
process.75  A  statute  conferring  upon  the  governor  the 
power  to  revoke  a  commission  in  the  militia  whenever  in 
his  judgment  such  action  was  necessary  or  expedient  for 
the  public  good  or  good  of  the  service  was  held  not  to  be 
repealed  by  a  law  that  a  commissioned  officer  might  be 
honorably  discharged  in  certain  specified  cases  and  dis- 
missed for  specified  causes.76  Where  a  statute  provides  for 
a  writ  of  error  to  a  specified  court,  it  operates  as  a  repeal 
of  any  previous  statute  giving  a  writ  of  error  to  another 
and  different  court.77 

§  250  (141).  New  grant  of  part  of  power  already  pos- 
sessed.— Where  a  later  act  grants  to  an  officer  or  tribunal  a 
part  of  a  larger  power  already  possessed,  and  in  terms  which 
interpreted  by  themselves  import  a  grant  of  all  the  power  the 
grantee  is  intended  to  exercise,  it  repeals  the  prior  act 
from  which  the  larger  power  had  been  derived.  By  a  stat- 
ute of  Kentucky  of  1799  the  county  courts  had  power  to 
appoint  county  jailers  to  serve  during  their  pleasure.  In 
1802  a  provision  was  inserted  in  an  act  to  amend  the  penal 
laws,  "that  the  several  county  courts  respectively  shall 
have  full  power  to  remove  the  keepers  of  the  county  jails 
whenever  it  shall  appear  to  them  that  such  jailers  have 
been  guilty  of  neglect  of  duty."  This  was  held  to  repeal 
the  prior  statute.78 

73  Fort    Pitt  B.   &    L.    Ass'n    v.  76  Winslow  v.  Morton,  118  N.  C. 

Model  Plan  B.  &  L.  Ass'n,  159  Pa,  486,  24  S.  E.  417. 

St.  SOS,  28  Atl.  215.  To  same  effect.  77  Brown  v.  United  States,  171  U. 

McGivney  v.  Pierce,  87  Cal.  124,  25  S.  631, 19  S.  C.  Rep.  56, 42  L.  Ed.  312. 

Pac.  269.  78  Gorham  v.  Luckett,  6  B.  Mon. 

7*  Duke  v.  O'Bryan,  100  Ky.  710,  146.     Marshall,  J.,  said  in  this  case: 

39  S.  W.  444,824.  "As  it  is  unquestionable  that  the 

78  Baldinger  v.  Rockford  Ins.  Co.,  power  of  the  legislature  to  pre- 

80  Minn.  147,  82  N.  W.  1083.  scribe  the  tenure  of  the  office  of 


m 


ill  I'l   A  I  •      AM'     Kl   l'I'AI  l.Nii     ATI'S. 


While  a  statute  existed  giving  appeals  to  the  county 
court  from  judgments  of  justices  of  the  peace  in  all  cases 
without  regard  to  the  amount,  other  than  upon  the  verdict 


jailer,  and  to  regulate  the  1  ower  of 
the  county  court  in  vacating  that 
office,  continued  the  same  after  the 
act  of  1799  as  it  had  been  before; 

and  as  the  subsequent  legislative 
will  upon  a  subject  thus  completely 
within  its  control  must,  if  suffi- 
ciently indicated,  prevail  over  that 
will  as  previously  expressed,  the 
inquiry  is  whether  there  is  in  the 
twenl  eth  section  of  the  act  of  1802 
any  sufficient  indication  of  the  leg- 
islative will  or  intention  that 
thenceforth  the  office  of  jailer  shall 
not  be  held  at  the  mere  pleasure  of 
the  county  court,  but  should  only 
lie  subject  to  forfeiture  by  neglect 
of  duty,  and  be  thus  placed  on  a 
footing  with  the  great  mass  of 
other  offices  in  this  commonwealth. 
Did  the  legislature  intend  to  ex- 
press in  this  twentieth  section  the 
whole  power  of  removal  as  it  should 
thenceforth  exist  in  the  county 
court?  If  they  did,  then  as  the 
] » Aver  previously  existing  is  incon- 
sistent with  this  intention,  and  as 
the  proviso  conferring  the  previous 
power  is  therefore  inconsistent 
with  the  twentieth  section  of  the 
actof  1802,  intended  to  restrict  t  bat 
power,  the  proviso  comes  clearly 
within  the  purview  of  this  twen- 
tieth  section,  and  is  embraced  by 
the  repealing  clause  of  the  statute, 
if  ind  ed  it  would  not  be  repealed 
by  implication  without  it. 

"  If  it  were  allowable  to  suppose 

that  the  legislature  who  framed  and 

ted  t  his  twentieth  section  were 

ignorant  of  the  proviso  in  the  act 


of  170(.».  and  of  the  power  thereby 
vested  in  the  county  court,  of  re- 
moving the  jailer  at  pleasure,  the 
inference  would  seem  to  be  irre- 
sistible, that  as  the  twentieth  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1^03  was  intended 
toconferanewpoweron  thecounty 
court,  so  it  was  intended  to  express, 
and  did  express,  the  whole  power 
which  it  was  intended  that  they 
should  have  over  the  subject.  This 
would  necessarily  be  the  construc- 
tion of  the  section  considered  as 
conferring  a  new  power.  And  as 
every  person  ignorant  of  the  pre- 
existing law  would,  upon  reading 
this  section,  understand  it  as  con- 
ferring a  new  power,  so  every  such 
person  would  understand  it  as  con- 
ferring all  the  power  which  the 
court  was  intended  to  have.  But 
supposing,  as  one  must  do,  that  the 
legislature  of  1802  understood  well 
the  pre-existing  law  on  the  subject 
to  which  this  twentieth  section  re- 
lates, that  they  knew  that  the 
county  court  had  already  the  power 
of  removing  the  jailer,  not  only  for 
breach  of  duty,  but  for  any  other 
cause,  and  without  cause  and  with- 
out question,  then  the  inquiry 
comes,  for  what  purpose  and  with 
what  intent  do  these  legislators  in- 
troduce into  this  act  for  amending 
the  penal  laws,  a  section  which 
professes  to  make  a  formal  and 
substantial  grant  of  power,  which, 
construed  by  its  terms,  would  be 
universally  understood  as  granting 
a  new  power,  and  therefore  as  ex- 
pressing the  whole  power  which 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


of  a  jury,  a  new  statute  was  passed  which  allowed  appeals- 
from  such  judgments  when  they  exceeded  $5.  It  was  held 
a  repeal  of  the  former  statute;  for  otherwise  there  would 


it  was  intended  that  the  grantee 
should  have?  Why  make  an  ex- 
press grant  of  a  part  of  the  power, 
if  understanding  that  the  whole 
oower,  including  this  part,  was  al- 
ready vested  in  the  court,  it  was 
intended  that  the  whole  power, 
including  this  part,  should  still  re- 
main? If  the  proviso  of  the  act  of 
1799  remained  in  force  after  the 
enactment  of  the  twentieth  section 
of  the  act  of  1802,  then  it  is  abso- 
lutely certain  that  so  much  of  that 
section  as  relates  to  the  removal  of 
county  jailers  was  utterly  without 
effect,  and  might  just  as  well  have 
been  out  of  the  section.  And  the 
same  is  true,  if  any  part  of  the 
pre-existing  power  beyond  that 
which  is  expressed  in  this  twen- 
tieth section  continued  to  exist 
after  its  enactment.  For  to  the 
extent  that  the  power  is  expressed 
in  this  section,  it  already  existed 
and  would  have  continued  to  exist 
without  any  new  grant,  and  the 
new  grant  can  have  no  effect  what- 
ever, unless  it  have  the  effect  of 
restricting  the  pre-existing  power, 
by  bringing  it  down  to  the  meas- 
ure of  the  new  grant.  Can  we  then 
say  that  the  legislature  did  not  in- 
tend this  section  to  have  any  effect 
and  virtually  expunge  it  from  the 
statute  ?  Or  must  we  allow  to  it  the 
only  effect  which  it  can  possibly 
have,  by  understanding  it  to  be, 
what  if  construed  exclusively  with 
reference  to  its  own  terms  it  must 
be  understood  to  be,  a  substantial 
grant  of  power  expressing  all  the 


power  the  grantee  was  intended  to 
have,  and  withholding  or  resuming 
whatever  beyond  this  had  been  for- 
merly granted  ?  This  question  does 
not  arise  upon  a  single  expression 
or  clause  of  a  sentence,  making 
casual  reference  to  a  subject  for- 
eign to  the  context,  and  which  may 
have  been  inadvertently  intro- 
duced. Here  is  an  entire  section, 
which  relates  to  no  other  subject 
but  the  power  of  removing  the  offi- 
cers therein  named,  and  of  which 
the  principal  subject  is  the  powei 
of  removing  county  jailers,  and  the 
principal  object  (apparently  the 
least)  to  confer  or  regulate  thai 
power.  The  section  must  have  been 
introduced  deliberately,  designedly 
and  to  effect  some  particular  pur- 
pose. Are  we  at  liberty  to  say  that 
it  should  have  no  effect  whatever1. 
"It  is  not  a  case  of  the  re-enact- 
ment of  a  former  law  in  the  same 
words,  or  with  additional  provis- 
ions, nor  of  a  regrant  of  a  pre- 
existing power  to  the  same  or  a 
greater  extent.  It  is  not  a  case  of 
cumulative  or  additional  power  or 
right  or  remedy.  Nor  does  it  come 
within  the  rule  that  a  subsequent 
affirmative  statute  does  not  repeal 
a  previous  one,  which  can  only 
apply  where  both  can  have  effect. 
This  is  a  formal  and  express  grant 
of  limited  power  to  a  deposi- 
tory which  already  had  unlimited 
power.  And  it  can  have  no  effect, 
nor  be  ascribed  to  any  other  pur- 
pose, but  that  of  limiting  the  ex- 
tent of  the  existing  power.    If  cer- 


REPEALS    AM'    REPEALING     ACTS. 


be  imputed  to  the  legislature  the  folly  of  enacting  a  statute 
without  purpose,  and  which  leaves   the   law  precisely  as   it 


tain  provisions  of  two  statutes  are 

identical,  t  lu>  last  n»><>> I  not  be  con- 

Btrued  as  repealing,  but  merely  as 

nuingor  re-affirming,  the  first, 

i  hich  there  might  be  various 

-.     So    if  a    statute   give   a 
reme  ly,  or  provide  that    certain 
shall  lie  sufficient  for  the  at- 
tainment or  security  ol  certain  ob- 
and    a    subsequent    statute 
B    part    of  the  same 
remedy  or  some  of  the  same  acts, 
or  ot  different, 

.   suffice  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  same  object,  here  the 
s  not  necessarily  re- 
peal the  former,  except  so  far  as  it 
pressed  or  implied  inthe 
former   that   the  end  shall  be  at- 
i  by  no  other  mode  but  that 
:h  it  prescribes.     If  there  be 
such    restriction   in   the   first, 
there  is  no  conflict  between  them. 
may  stand  together  with  full 
st,  and  the  provisions  of  either 
may  be  pursued. 

"But  if  a  subsequent  statute  re- 
quires the  same,   and  also    more 
than  a  former  statute  had  made 
lent,  this  is  in  effect  a  repeal 
of  so  much  of  the  former  statute 
as  declares  the  sulliciency  of  what 
it  prescribes.     And  if  the  last  act 
professes,  or  manifestly"inten<l-,  to 
I  tie  wholesubject  to  which 
lates,  it  necessarily  supersedes 
repeals  all  former  acts,  so  far 
'lifers,  from  them  in  its  pre- 
tions.     The  great  object,  then, 
rtain  the  true  interpreta- 
tion of  the  last  act     That  being 
rtained,  the  necessary  conse- 


quence is,  that  the  legislative  in- 
tention thus  deduced  from  it  must 
prevail  over  any  prior  inconsistent 
intention  to  be  deduced  from  a 
pre\  ions  act 

"Since,  then,  the  twentieth  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1802,  interpreted 
ding  to  its  own  terms,  imports 
a  substantial  grant  of  power,  and 
of  all  the  power  that  the  county 
courts  were  intended  to  have  on 
the  subject,  and  since  it  would  be 
useless  and  without  effect,  unless 
thus  understood  as  regulating  the 
whole  subject  of  the  removal  of 
jailers  by  the  county  courts,  we 
feel  bound  to  give  to  it  this  inter- 
pretation: anil,  therefore,  to  con- 
clude that,  after  that  act  took  ef- 
fect the  county  courts  bad  no  other 
power  of  removing  jailers  but  that 
which  the  twentieth  section  con- 
fers, of  removing  them  whenever 
it  shall  appear  to  the  court  that  * 
such  jailers  have  been  guilty  of  a 
neglect  of  duty.  If  this  twentieth 
section  had  been  the  first  and  only 
enactment  on  the  subject,  all  must 
have  concurred  in  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  intended  to  regulate 
the  whole  subject,  and  that  it 
granted  all  the  power  which  the 
court  was  intended  to  hava  The 
difficulty,  or  rather  the  embarrass- 
ment, in  the  case,  arises  from  the 
fact  that  a  previous  law  had  given 
to  the  same  grantee  unlimited 
power  on  the  same  subject,  and  that 
this  twentieth  section  makes  no 
reference  to  the  previous  law,  and 
contains  no  express  words  of  re- 
striction or  change,  but,  granting 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


479 


stood  before.79  By  an  act  of  1776,  adopted  by  Kentucky 
from  Virginia,  it  was  provided  that  "  a  person  residing  in 
any  other  country,  for  passing  an}?  lands  and  tenements  in 
this  commonwealth  by  deed,  shall  acknowledge  or  prove 
the  same  before  "  the  mayor  or  chief  magistrate  of  the  city 
or  corporation  wherein  or  near  to  which  he  resides.  But 
where  there  was  no  mayor  or  other  chief  magistrate  within 
the  county,  then  a  certificate  under  the  hands  and  seals  of 
two  justices  or  magistrates  of  the  county,  that  the  proof  or 
acknowledgment  has  been  made  before  them,  should  be 
sufficient.  And  "  where  any  person  making  such  convey- 
ance shall  be  a  feme  covert,  her  interest  in  any  lands  or  tene- 
ments should  not  pass  thereby  unless  she  personally  ac- 
knowledge the  same  before  such  mayor  or  chief  magistrate, 


an  express  and  limited  power,  is 
framed  as  if  it  were  the  first  and 
only  act  on  the  subject.  But  do  not 
these  circumstances  indicate  that 
it  is  to  be  construed  as  if  it  were 
the  only  act  on  the  subject?  Or 
shall  the  first  act.  which  is  inferior 
in  authority  so  far  as  they  conflict, 
so  far  affect  the  construction  of  the 
last  as  to  deprive  it  of  all  effect? 
We  say  the  last  act  must  have  ef- 
fect according  to  its  terms  and  its 
obvious  intent.  And  as  both  can- 
not have  full  operation  according 
to  their  terms  and  intent,  the  first 
and  not  the  last  act  must  yield.  If 
it  could  be  supposed  to  have  been 
a  matter  of  doubt  whether,  under 
the  act  of  1799,  the  county  court 
had  power  to  remove  the  jailers  for 
neglect  of  duty,  or  if  any  motive 
could  be  assigned  for  introducing 
a  separate  section  expressly  grant- 
ing this  power,  except  the  purpose 
of  expressing  the  whole  power 
which  the  courts  were  to  have,  then 
the  basis  of  the  construction  which 


we  have  assumed  would  be  greatly 
weakened,  if  not  destroyed.  But 
we  do  not  perceive  that  any  other 
plausible  motive  can  be  assigned. 
And  as,  notwithstanding  the  act  of 
1799,  it  was  entirely  within  the  leg- 
islative power  to  withdraw,  retract 
or  modify  the  power  of  removal 
thereby  given  to  the  county  courts, 
and  the  courts  had  no  right  of  re- 
sistance or  refusal,  we  regard  the 
subsequent  grant  of  a  more  limited 
power,  advisedly  and  formally 
made,  as  implying  the  resumption 
of  the  old  grant,  and  a  restriction 
of  the  power  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  new  one,  as,  by  the  accept- 
ance of  a  new  lease  during  a  sub- 
sisting term,  the  rights  of  the  ten- 
ant are  governed  by  the  terms  of 
the  new  grant." 

79  Curtis  v.  Gill,  34  Conn.  49;  Par- 
rott  v.  Stevens,  37  Conn.  93.  See 
United  States  v.  Ten  Thousand  Ci- 
gars, 1  Woolw.  123,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16.451. 


lUD    i-i  i'i   \i .ING    ACTS. 

or  before  two  justices  or  magistrates  as  aforesaid."  By  an 
act  passed  in  I7v.">.  entitled  "An  act  for  regulating  convey- 
ances," it  was  provided  that  "when  husband  and  wife  shall 
ha\  .■  Bealed  and  delivered  a  writing  purporting  to  be  a  con- 
veyance of  any  estate  or  interest,  if  she  appear  in  court 
ami  being  examined  privily  and  apart  from  her  husband,  by 
one  of  the  judges  thereof,  etc.,  or  if  before  two  justices  of 
the  peace  of  that  county  in  which  she  dwells,  who  may  be 
empowered  by  commission,  to  be  issued  by  the  clerk  of  the 
court  wherein  the  writing  ought  to  be  recorded,'''  etc.,  it  shall 
be  sufficient  to  convey  her  estate.  The  court  by  McLean,  J., 
said:  "  By  the  act  of  1770  the  acknowledgment  and  privy 
examination  of  a  feme  covert  were  required  to  be  made  be- 
fore the  mayor  or  other  chief  magistrate,  or  before  two 
justices  or  magistrates  of  the  town  or  place  where  she  shall 
reside.  The  acknowledgment  before  two  justices  is  retained 
in  the  act  of  17b5  with  this  additional  requisite,  that  the 
justices  shall  be  commissioned,  as  provided,  to  perform  this 
duty.  This  necessarily  repeals  that  part  of  the  prior  act 
which  authorized  the  acknowledgment  to  be  taken  before 
two  justices  without  being  commissioned.  The  latter  act 
is  in  this  regard  repugnant  to  the  former.  The  provisions 
cannot  stand  together,  as  the  latter  act  superadds  an  essen- 
tial qualification  of  the  justices  not  required  by  the  former. 
"But  the  important  question  is  whether,  as  the  act  of  1785 
made  no  provision  authorizing  a  mayor  of  a  city  to  take 
the  acknowledgment  of  a  feme  covert,  that  provision  in  the 
act  of  177G  is  repealed  by  it.  In  this  respect  it  is  clear 
there  is  no  repugnancy  between  the  two  acts.  The  two 
provisions  may  well  stand  together;  the  latter  is  cumulative 
to  the  former.'180 

251  (142).  Repealing  effect  of  new  statutes  changing 
criminal  laws. —  Penal  statutes  include  the  definition  of 
offenses,  and  of  punishments,  not  necessarily  in  the  same 
act;  but  the  definition  of  the  offense  and  the  prescription  of 

^Daviess  v.   Fairbairn,  3  How.     tenum,  56  Miss.  232.     See  Swan n  v. 
636,  11  L.  Ed.  760;  Gibbons  v.  Brit-    Buck,  40  Miss.  208-307. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS 


481 


the  penalty  are  so  allied  that  legislation  affecting  one  may 
affect  the  other.81  Where  a  statute  prescribes  a  new  pun- 
ishment for  a  common-law  offense,  it  is  still  a  common-law 
offense,82  and  only  the  punishment  is  changed.83  But  where 
a  common-law  offense  is  defined  and  enacted  by  statute, 
which  also  prescribes  the  penalty,  the  common  law  is  re- 
pealed and  the  offense  is  thus  made  a  statutory  offense.84  A 
change  in  the  elements  of  the  offense  or  in  the  elements  or 
amount  of  the  penalty  will  destroy  the  identity  of  the  of- 
fense and  effect  a  repeal  to  the  extent  of  the  repugnance.*5 
When  the  new  law  uses  the  same  words  as  the  old,  the  sec- 
ond is  declaratory  and  not  repugnant,  and  there  is  no  re- 
peal.86 A  re-enactment  has  been  held  a  continuation  though 
the  punishment  by  imprisonment  is  reduced.87     A  statute 


81  Commonwealth  v.  Kimball,  21 
Pick.  373;  Commonwealth  v.  Mc- 
Donough,  13  Allen,  581;  Flaherty 
v.  Thomas,  12  Allen.  42a 

82  Williams  v.  Reg.,  7  Q.  B.  250; 
McCann  v.  State,  13  Sm.  &  M.  471; 
State  v.  Daley,  29  Conn.  272,  276. 

83  King  v.  Bridges,  8  East,  53. 

84  Commonwealth  v.  Marshall,  11 
Pick.  350,  22  Am.  Dec.  377;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Cooley,  10  Pick.  37; 
State  v.  Boogher,  71  Mo.  631. 

85Norris  v.  Crocker,  13  How.  429, 
14  L.  Ed.  210;  Dowdell  v.  State,  58 
Ind.333;  State  v.  Smith,  44  Tex.  443; 
State  v.  Whitworth,  8  Port.  (Ala.) 
434;  Rexv.  Cator,  4 Burr.  2026;  King 
v.  Davis,  1  Leach's  Cas.  271;  United 
States  v.  Tynen,  11  Wall.  88,  20  L. 
Ed.  153;  Gorman  v.  Hammond,  28 
Ga.  85;  Mullen  v.  People,  31  111.  444; 
Michell  v.  Brown,  1  E.  &  E.  267; 
United  States  v.  Case  of  Pencils, 
1  Paine,  400,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,924; 
People  v.  Bussell,  59  Mich.  104,  26 
N.  W.  306;  State  v.  Horsey,  14  Ind. 
185;  State  v.  Pierce,  id.  302;  Leigh- 
31 


ton  v.  Walker,  9  N.  H.  59;  Nichols 
v.  Squire,  5  Pick.  168;  State  v. 
Grady,  34  Conn.  118;  State  v.  Daley, 
29  id.  272;  Commonwealth  v.  Gard- 
ner, 11  Gray,  438;  State  v.  Massey 
103  N.  C.  356,  9  S.  E.  632;  Turner  v. 
State,  40  Ala.  21;  Lindzey  v.  State. 
65  Miss.  542,  5  So.  99,  7  Am.  St.  Rep. 
674;  Miles  v.  State,  40  Ala.  39; 
Buckallew  v.  Ackerman,  8  N.  J.  L. 
48;  People  v.  Tisdale,  57  Cal.  104; 
Reg.  v.  Youle,  6  H.  &  N.  753;  State 
v.  Hamblin,  4  Rich.  (N.  S.)  1;  Sher- 
man v.  State,  17  Fla.  888;  Pitman 
v.  Commonwealth,  2  Rob.  (Va.) 
813;  Magruder  v.  State,  40  Ala.  347; 
Smith  v.  State,  1  Stew.  506;  Wall 
v.  State,  23  Ind.  150;  State  v.  Craig, 
id.  185;  Drew  County  v.  Bennett, 
43  Ark.  364;  Hodnett  v.  State,  66 
Miss.  26,  5  So.  518. 

86 Commonwealth  v.  Gardner,  11 
Gray,  438;  State  v.  Gumbler,  37 
Wis.  298.  See  Hirschburg  v.  Peo- 
ple, 6  Colo.  145. 

87  State  v.  Wish,  15  Neb.  448,  19 
N.  W.  680.    See  Nichols  v.  Squire, 


4S2  ki  ri  \i  B    ami    Ki.i-l  a  I  ING    AOTS. 

fixing  the  penalty  for  a  wilful  and  malioious  trespass  will 
not  repeal  an  existing  law  fixing  a  different  penalty  for  a 
wilful  trespass.  T!i>'  elements  of  the  offense  defined  in  one 
section  arc  not  the  same  as  those  which  constitute  the  of- 
m  us,'  in  the  other;  the  last  act  is  cumulative;  the  two  can 
staml  together.88  A  statute  establishing  and  defining  two 
es  of  murder  to  be  found  by  the  jury,  one  punishable 
according  to  the  existing  law  by  death,  and  the  other  by  a 
milder  punishment,  imprisonment  for  life,  will  not  have  the 
effect  to  repeal  the  law  against  murder  which  was  punish- 
able by  death  without  distinction  of  degre 

§  252  (143).  Where  a  later  statute  contains  no  reference 
to  the  former  statute,  am!  defines  an  offense  containing 
some  of  the  elements  constituting  the  offense  defined  in  such 
former  statute  and  other  elements,  it  is  a  new  and  substan- 
tive offense.  The  two  statutes  can  stand  together  and  there 
is  no  repeal.90  So  if  the  later  statute  prescribe  a  punishment 
for  acts  with  only  a  part  of  the  ingredients  or  incidents  es- 
sential to  constitute  the  offense  defined  in  a  former  statute.91 
But  if  the  same  offense,  identified  by  name  or  otherwise,  is 
altered  in  degrees  or  incidents,  or  if  a  felony  is  changed  to 
a  misdemeanor,  or  vice  versa,92  the  statute  making  such 

5  Pick.  168;  Gorman  v.  Hammond,  9   App.  Div.  43G,  41   N.  Y.  S.  283; 

L  85;  State  v.  Whitworth,  8  Golonbieski  v.  State,  101  Wis.  333, 

Port.  434;  Smith  v.  State.  1   Stew.  77  N.  W.  189. 

506;    Carter    v.    Hawley,    Wright  "Coghill  v.  State,  37  Intl.  111.    A 

(Ohio).  74;    Leighton  v.  Walker,   9  statute  imposing  a  penalty  on  the 

X.  II.  59;  Flaherty  v.  Thomas,  12  sale  of   fireworks  without  special 

Allen,  428;    Blackwell  v.  State,  45  license  is  not   repugnant  to  and 

Ark.  90.  therefore  not  repealed  by  a  subse- 

,-ite   v.    Alexander,  14  Puck  quent  act  imposing  taxes  for  rev- 

:  17;  Blackwell  v.  State,  45  Ark.  90.  enue  purposes  on  the  manufactur- 

SeeCoghill  v.  State,  37  Ind.  111.  ers     and    venders    of    fireworks. 

.amonwealth  v.  Gardner,  11  Homer  v.  Commonwealth,  100  Pa. 

.  438.  St.221,51  Am.  Rep.521;  Youngblood 

ite    v.  Alexander,   14  Rich.  v.  Sexton,  32  Mich.  406,  425, 20  Am. 

247;     State    v.   Benjamin,  2    Ore.  Rep.  654.     See  State  v.  Duncan,  16 

Bennett  v.  State,  2  Yerg.  472;  Lea,  79. 

.  Downs.  8  T.  I;.  569;  Pons  v.  92Rex  v.  Davis,  1  Leach,  271;  Peo- 

.  49  Miss.  1;  People  v.  Koenig,  pie  v.  Tisdale,  57   Cal.  104;   Mon- 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  483 

changes  has  the  effect  to  repeal  the  former  statute.  Two 
penal  provisions,  passed  in  one  act  or  at  different  times, 
may  co-exist  though  covering  in  part  the  same  acts,  and  ap- 
plicable in  part  to  the  same  persons,  and  prescribing  differ- 
ent penalties.  One  will  not  render  the  other  nugatory  con- 
trary to  the  legislative  intent.93 

Where  a  new  law  covers  the  whole  subject-matter  of  an 
old  one,  adds  new  offenses,  and  prescribes  different  penalties 
for  those  enumerated  in  the  old  law,  then  such  former  law 
is  repealed  by  implication.94  The  effect  would  probably  be 
that  of  revision  and  repeal,  though  no  new  offenses  were 
added;  it  is  enough  that  the  new  statute  embraces  all  the 
provisions  of  previous  statutes  on  the  same  subject  which 
are  intended  to  have  force.95  The  revision  of  criminal  laws 
or  new  legislation  which  manifestly  is  intended  to  furnish 
the  only  rule  that  shall  govern  has  the  same  effect  as  like 
legislation  has  on  other  subjects.™  In  each  case  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  legislative  intent.  The  question  ever  is,  Did  the  leg- 
islature intend  to  repeal  the  former  law,  or  was  the  new 
law  intended  to  be  merely  cumulative?97  In  Re  Baker,98 
Brain  well,  B.,  said:  "  When  a  statute  directs  something  to 
be  done  in  a  certain  event,  and  another  law  is  made  which 

geon  v.  People,  55  N.  Y.  613;  Hayes  tain  privilege  and  a  penalty  forex- 
v.  State,  55  Ind.  99;  Michell  v.  ercising  it  without  a  license;  a  sub- 
Brown,  1  E.  &  E.  267;  Sherman  sequent  act  changed  the  tax  and 
v.  State,  17  Fla.  888;  State  v.  Young,  provided  a  remedy  for  its  collec- 
49  La.  Ann.  70,  21  So.  142;  State  v.  tion,  but  was  silent  as  to  the  pen- 
Brown,  48  La.  Ann.  1569,  21  So.  143.  alty;  held,  that  there  was  no  such 

93  Davies  v.  Harvey,  L  R.  9  Q.  B.  incompatibility  as  to  cause  a  re- 

433;  The  Industry,  1  Gall.  114,  Fed.  peal.     Cate  v.  State,  3  Sneed,  120, 

Cas.  No.  7028.  9b  United    States    v.    Tynen,    1 1 

si  Norris  v.  Crocker,  13  How.  429,  Wall.  88,  20  L.   Ed.  153;  State   v. 

14  L.  Ed.  210;  Dowdell  v.  State,  58  Watts,  23  Ark.  304. 

Ind.  333;  Johns  v.  State,  78  id.  332,  9?Sifred  v.  Commonwealth,  104 

41  Am.  Rep.  577;  Michell  v.  Brown,  Pa.  St.  179;  United  States  v.  Case 

1  E.  &  E.  267.  of  Pencils,  1  Paine,  400,  Fed.  Cas. 

95  Commonwealth  v.  Kelliher,  12  No.   15,924;   Osborn,  Ex  parte,   24 

Allen,  480.  See  Nusser  v.  Common-  Ark.  479;  Coats  v.  Hill,  41  id.  149. 

wealth,  25  Pa.  St.  126.     A  statute  982  H.  &  N.  219. 
fixed  a  tax  on  the  exercise  of  a  cer- 


48  I  Rl  PI   ^.LS    AM'    BBPE  \i.im;    A.OTS. 

appoints  something  rise  to  be  done,  not  contradictory  but 
more  comprehensive,  and  including  the  former,  I  cannot 
help  thinking  that  the  first  aot  is  gone." 
Where,  however,  the  new  statute  contains  no  reference 

for  repeal  or  otherwise  to  existing  statutes,  and  defines  an 
offense  made  punishable  by  a  prior  law,  and  imposes  a  new 
punishment,  it  will  not  repeal  such  prior  law  as  to  existing 
3;  lor,  as  the  new  law  will  only  operate  prospectively, 
there  is  as  to  offenses  already  committed  no  conflict.  The 
prior  law  will  operate  as  to  all  offenses  against  it  com- 
mitted up  to  the  time  that  the  new  law  goes  into  effect,  and 
the  trial  may  be  had  and  judgment  pronounced  afterwards.*' 
The  same  rule  would  govern  where  a  cumulative  penalty  is 
prescribed.1 

A  statute  providing  for  or  defining  an  offense  created  by 
a  previous  statute,  and  providing  a  materially  different  pun- 
ishment, repeals  the  former  act.2  If  the  punishment  pre- 
scribed by  statute  for  larceny  of  any  sum  above  $50  be 
imprisonment  in  the  state's  prison  not  exceeding  five  years, 
and  subsequently  the  legislature  enact  a  severer  punishment 
for  larceny  of  an  amount  exceeding  $2,000,  the  law  is  not 
thereby  changed  as  to  larcenies  of  amounts  below  the  latter 
sum.3  The  repugnance  extends  no  further,  and  is  the  limit 
of  repeal  by  implication.4     So  where  a  statute  imposed  a 

"Mongeon   v.   People,  55  N.  Y.  v.   Horsey,   14    Ind.   185;    State  v. 

013:  People  v.  Hobson,  48  Mich.  27,  Pierce,  14  Ind.  302;  Mullen  v.  Peo- 

11  N.  W.  771;  Pitman  v.  Common-  pie,  31   III.  444;  Michell  v.  Brown. 

i>.  2  Rob.  (Va.)  813;  Mitchell  1  E.  &  E.  267;  Robinson  v.  Emer- 

v.  Duncan,  7  Fla.  13;  Miles  v.  State,  son,  4  H.  &  C.  355;  Cole  v.  Coulton, 

40  Ala.  89;  Commonwealth  v.  Pe-  2  E.  &  E  005;  Henderson  v.  Sher- 

gram,  1  Leigh,  569;  Commonwealth  borne,  2  M.  &  W.  236;  Attorney- 

v.   W'yatt,   0  Rand.   694;   State  v.  General  v.  Lockwood,  9  M.  &  W. 

Young,  49  La.  Ann.  70,  21  So.  142.  391 ;  Frazier  v.  Alexander,  75  Cal. 

x  v.  M<  Kenzie,  R.  &  R.  C.  C.  147,  16  Pac.  757;  In  re  Ambrosewf, 

429.  109  Cal.  264,  41  Pac.  1101. 

1  Shoemaker  v.  State,  20  N.  J.  L.  » State  v.  Grady,  34  Conn.  118; 
153.  State  v.  Miller,  58  Ind.  899. 

2  State  v.  Smith,  44  Tex.  443;  Gor-  *  By  a  statute  the  punishment 
man  v.  Hammond,  28  Ga.  85;  State  for  stealing  a  cow  was  a  fine  of 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  485 

certain  fine  and  a  minimum  term  of  imprisonment,  it  was 
held  not  repealed  by  a  subsequent  statute  which  gave  the 
court  a  discretion  on  proof  to  mitigate  this  punishment. 
The  court  say:  "It  does  not  change  any  previously  pre- 
scribed penalty,  nor  does  it  substitute  a  new  or  different 
kind  of  punishment  in  the  place  of  that  which  the  former 
statutes  had  affixed  to  certain  classes  of  offenses.  The  effect 
of  the  statute  was  merely  to  vest  in  the  court  a  discretion 
by  the  exercise  of  which  they  were  authorized  to  mitigate 
the  sentence  to  which  the  offender  was  liable,  by  dispensing 
Avith  a  portion  of  the  prescribed  punishment.  The  extent 
of  the  repeal  of  previous  statutes  is  then  only  this:  That,  in 
a  certain  class  of  cases,  instead  of  a  fixed  or  inflexible  rule 
of  punishment  which  could  not  be  modified  or  varied,  the 
court  has  authority  to  substitute  a  milder  sentence.  Clearly 
such  a  statute  is  not  a  violation  of  any  right  or  privilege  of 
an  accused  party,  nor  does  it  render  the  class  of  offenses  to 
which  it  relates,  and  which  were  committed  prior  to  its  en- 
actment, dispunishable.  It  does  not  inflict  any  greater 
punishment  than  was  before  prescribed;  it  is  not,  therefore, 
ex j?ost facto ;  it  only  authorizes  a  mitigation  of  a  penalty; 
it  is  therefore  an  act  of  clemency  which  violates  no  right, 
but  grants  a  privilege  to  a  convicted  party."5 

§  253  (144).  It  has  been  held  that  a  subsequent  act  may 
provide  an  alternative  punishment  in  mitigation  of  that 
previously  prescribed  without  being  ex  post  facto.6  A  stat- 
ute imposing  for  an  offense  the  penalty  of  imprisonment  in 
the  house  of  correction  in  the  county  where  the  offense 
was  committed  was  held  not  repealed  by  a  subsequent  stat- 
ute providing  that  the  court  in  its  discretion  may  commit 

ten  pounds,  or,  if  the  defendant  is  Cush.  237;  Commonwealth  v.  Gard- 

•unable    to    pay,    then    whipping;  ner,  11  Gray,  445;  Commonwealth 

held,  that  the   punishment,  after  v.  McKenney,  14  id.  1;  Calder  v. 

whipping  was  abolished,  was  the  Bull,  3  Dall.  386;  Walker  v.  State, 

fine.    State  v.   Hamblin,   4    Rich.  7  Tex.  App.  245. 

<N.  S.)l.  6  Turner    v.   State,   40    Ala.    21; 

*  Dolan  v.  Thomas,  12  Allen,  421 ;  Greer  v.  State,  22  Tex.  588.    But  see 

Commonwealth     v.     Wyman,    12  post,  §  671. 


•lv'.  R]  ri  .\r»    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 

the  person  under  sentence  to  the  house  of  correction  in  any 
county  In  the  state  in  the  same  manner  as  he  might  bo  to 
the  county  where  the  court  is  holden,  and  that  all  inconsist- 
ent statutes  are  repealed.7  Tho  court  said:  "The  change 
is  not  in  the  nature  of  the  penalty  or  its  degree,  but  only 
in  the  locality  where  it  may  be  inflicted.  The  essential 
rights  of  a  person  convicted  are  not  materially  affected,  nor 
is  the  punishment  aggravated,  by  an  imprisonment  in  one 
county  rather  than  another.  There  would  be  great  force 
in  the  argument  [that  there  is  an  implied  repeal]  if  the  new 
statute  had  authorized  the  imprisonment  to  be  inflicted  in 
a  penal  institution  designed  or  appropriated  for  the  punish- 
ment of  offenses  of  a  higher  or  more  aggravated  nature 
than  those  punishable  in  the  house  of  correction,  although 
the  term  of  imprisonment  had  remained  unchanged.  .  .  . 
But  under  the  statutes  of  this  commonwealth  the  several 
■s  of  correction  in  the  different  counties  of  the  com- 
monwealth are  places  designated  and  used  for  the  punish- 
ment of  offenses  of  the  same  grade  and  degree;  they  are 
all  subject  to  the  same  rule  of  government;  the  persons 
committed  to  them  are  under  substantially  the  same  disci- 
pline, and  are  entitled  to  the  same  rights  and  privileges. 
In  legal  contemplation,  a  commitment  to  a  house  of  correc- 
tion in  one  county  for  a  specific  term  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  higher  or  lesser  punishment  than  a  commitment  to  a 
house  of  correction  in  another  count}7  for  the  same  period 
of  time.  The  essential  elements  of  the  penalty  are  the  same 
in  either  case."  A  change  of  procedure  sometimes  has  been 
emphasized  as  aiding  the  inference  of  repeal.8  Where  a 
statute  prohibited  an  act  under  a  penalty  to  be  enforced  by 
indictment,  and  a  subsequent  statute  gave  a  qui  tarn  action 
for  such  penalty,  the  latter  was  held  merely  cumulative, 
and  did  not  repeal  the  remedy  given  by  the  former  act.9  A 
statute  authorizing  the  prosecution  of  all  misdemeanors  by 

7  Carter  v.  Burt,  12  Allen,  424.         Nusser   v.  Commonwealth,  25  Pa. 
.  shell  v.  Brown,  1  E.  &  E.  267;    St.  126. 

»  Bush  v.  Republic,  1  Tex.  455. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  4S7 

information  was  held  to  repeal  a  prior  statute  which  pro- 
vided that  the  violation  of  certain  sections  against  gam- 
bling should  be  prosecuted  by  indictment.10  A  statute  made 
it  a  misdemeanor  to  injure  or  remove  any  fence  or  wall  sur- 
rounding any  yard,  garden,  field,  or  pasture.  A  later  stat- 
ute, making  it  a  misdemeanor  to  injure  or  destroy  any  part 
of  a  wire  fence  situated  on  the  land  of  another,  was  held 
not  to  repeal  the  former.11  A  law  making  it  unlawful  to 
keep  open  on  Sunday  any  store,  shop,  or  place  for  the  pur- 
pose of  trade  was  held  not  to  repeal  a  prior  law  to  punish 
any  one  who  should  keep  open  a  saloon  on  Sunday.12  An 
act  providing  for  the  deposit  in  banks  of  public  funds  does 
not  repeal  or  affect  the  criminal  code  as  to  the  embezzlement 
of  public  money.13  An  indeterminate  sentence  act  was  held 
not  to  repeal  prior  provisions  of  the  code  requiring  the  jury 
to  fix  the  penalty,  but  merely  to  suspend  such  provisions, 
and  when  crimes  were  excepted  from  the  former  act  the 
provisions  of  the  code  at  once  applied.14  A  statute  provid- 
ing that  no  person  indicted  for  an  offense  shall  be  convicted 
thereof  unless  by  confession  of  his  guilt  in  open  court  or  by 
the  verdict  of  a  jury  accepted  and  recorded  in  open  court 
was  held  not  to  repeal,  by  implication,  a  former  statute 
that  judgment  may  be  rendered  against  the  defendant  in  a 
criminal  case  if  he  fails  to  plead  on  the  overruling  of  a  de- 
murrer to  the  indictment  or  information.15 

§  254  (145).  Statutes  granting  larger  or  different  power 
or  right. —  A  new  statute  which  affirmatively  grants  a 
larger  jurisdiction  or  power,  or  right,  repeals  any  prior  stat- 
ute by  which  a  power,  jurisdiction  or  right  less  ample  or 
absolute  had   been  granted.16     If  the  exercise  of  a  power 

10  Territory  v.  Cutinola,  4  N.  M.  "  People  v.  Murphy,  202  111.  493, 

305,  14  Pac.  809.  67  N.  E.  226. 

"  State  v.  Biggers,  108  N.  C.  760,  15  State  v.  Harding,  20  Wash.  556, 

12  S.  E.  1024  56  Pac.  399,  929. 

i2  State  v.  Binnard,  21  Wash.  349,  16  Farley  v.  De  Waters,  2  Daly, 

53  Pac.  210.  192;  Regina  v.  Harden,  2  Ellis  &  B. 

is  Whitney  v.  State,  53  Neb.  287,  188;  Schneider  v.  Staples,  66  Wis. 

72  N.  W.  270.  167,  28  N.  W.  145;  Board  of  Com- 


488  RBPJ  kl£    AM>    ki  PEALING    H  FS. 

granted  by  a  legislative  act  may  include  going  beyond  lim- 
ns fixed  by  a  prior  statute,  such  limitation  is  impliedly  re- 
moval, at  Least  so  far  as  it  conflicts  with  the  doing  of  that 
which  is  subsequently  authorized.  Thus,  a  power  given  to 
a  municipal  corporation  to  create  a  debt  and  provide  for  its 
payment  empowered  it  to  provide  for  the  payment  by  tax- 
i  according  to  the  exigency  of  the  contract,  though  tax- 
ation for  that  purpose  would  exceed  a  limitation  in  the 
general  law  in  force  as  to  the  annual  rate  of  taxation.17  An 
English  statute  authorized  the  removal  of  poor  persons 
likely  to  become  chargeable.  The  power  was  given  to  two 
justices,  one  to  be  of  the  quorum.  A  later  statute  recited 
that  act  and  repealed  the  provision  for  removal  on  the  prob- 
ability of  their  becoming  chargeable,  and  enacted  that  a  re- 
moval might  be  made  of  such  persons  after  they  had  become 
chargeable  to  the  parish,  by  two  justices  of  the  peace,  with- 
out mention  of  the  quorum.  It  was  held  that  the  require- 
ment that  one  of  the  justices  be  of  the  quorum,  contained 
in  the  previous  act,  was  repealed  by  implication.18  Where 
the  later  statute  merely  extends  the  power  or  right  to  new 
subjects,  though  without  mentioning  the  limitations  appli- 
cable to  the  subjects  to  which  the  early  law  referred,  they 
may,  by  construction,  be  held  to  attach  to  the  new  subjects, 
when  found  consonant  to  the  manifest  intention  of  the  leg- 
islature, or  when  such  construction  accords  with  its  uni- 
form policy.19  By  the  Revised  Statutes  of  New  York,20  an 
incorporated  academy  could  take  and  hold  by  gift,  grant 
or  devise  real  and  personal  property,  the  clear  yearly  in- 
come or  revenue  of  which  did  not  exceed  the  value  of  $4,000. 

raissioners  v.  Potts,  Sheriff,  10  Ind.  17  Commonwealth  v.  Commission- 

286;  Mayor,  etc.  of  Jersey  City  v.  ers  of  Allegheny  Co.,  40  Pa.  St.  348. 

Jersey  City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  ™  Regina  v.  Llangian,  4  B.  &  S. 

Commissioners  of  Knox  240. 

Co.   v.    McComb,  19  Ohio  St.  :320;  ™  Chamberlain  v.  Chamberlain, 

McRoberts  v.  Washburne,  10  Minn.  43  N.  Y.  424;  State  v.  Tolly.  :J7  S. 

..  Burton,  33  Neb.  823,  51  C.  551,  16  S.  E.  195;  Frazier  v.  Rail- 

N,  W.  140.  way  Co.,  88  Tenn.  138,  12  S.  W.  537. 

20 1  R  S.  402,  §  42. 


REPEALS    AIS1D    REPEALING    ACTS.  489 

By  subsequent  acts  trusts  were  authorized  to  be  created  by 
grants,  devises  and  bequests  of  property  to  any  incorporated 
college  or  other  literary  incorporated  institution  for  specific 
purposes  of  support  of  liberal  education.  By  the  terms  of 
these  acts  no  limit  in  amount  or  value  of  property  which 
can  thus  be  given  in  trust  is  prescribed.  The  court  say: 
"But  these  statutes  are  in  no  sense  repugnant  to  the  gen- 
eral law  of  the  state,  limiting  and  restricting  the  amount 
and  value  of  property  which  can  be  taken  and  held  by  lit- 
erary and  educational  corporations,  and  the  general  laws 
are  in  harmony  with  the  general  policy  of  the  state,  which 
has  been  uniform  and  consistent  so  far  as  such  policy  is  in- 
dicated by  legislation  in  relation  to  gifts  in  mortmain  and 
the  power  of  corporations  to  take  and  hold  property.  Spe- 
cial trusts  were  authorized  to  be  created  by  the  acts  of  1840 
and  1841,  in  furtherance  of  the  general  objects  of  the  insti- 
tutions named ;  but  such  trusts  can  be  created  and  full  ef- 
fect given  to  the  acts  within  the  limits  imposed  by  the 
general  laws  upon  the  power  of  the  corporations  to  acquire 
and  hold  property.  The  general  laws  of  restraint  and  those 
particular  acts  permitting  special  trusts  may  stand  together. 
.  .  .  There  being  no  express  repeal  of  the  general  pro- 
vision of  the  law,  or  repudiation  of  the  uniform  policy  of 
the  state,  the  intent  of  the  legislature  to  do  either  cannot 
be  implied.  Unlimited  trusts  of  this  character  might  be- 
come an  unmitigated  evil,  and  no  contingent  good  could 
compensate  for  the  actual  evil  attendant  upon  withdrawing 
property  from  general  use  and  placing  it  in  dead  hands. 
Judges  have  given  the  widest  possible  scope  to  statutes  in 
restraint  of  the  disposal  of  property  in  mortmain,  and  have 
been  astute  in  their  arguments  for  the  application  of  such 
statutes  to  cases  as  they  arose.21  The  courts  ought  not  to 
impute  an  intent  to  the  legislature  not  clearly  expressed, 
in  direct  hostility  to  the  traditions  and  policy  of  the  past. 
The  institute  can  'take  and  hold'  property  within  the  lim- 
its prescribed,  but  can  neither  take  nor  hold  in  excess  of 

21  Per  Gibson,  Ch.  J.,  Hillyard  v.  Miller,  10  Pa.  St.  32G. 


l.i  P]   \i  B     \M>    REPEALING    A.0T8. 

that  limit;  effect  will  not  be  given  to  a  transgressive  be- 
if  the  amount  anl  horized."21' 

A  local  act  directed  the  trustees  of  a  turnpike  to  keep 
accounts  and  proceedings  in  books  to  which  all  per- 
Bons  should  have  access.  A  subsequent  general  turnpike 
es  the  importance  of  a  uniform  system  to  be  adhered 
to  in  tin*  laws  relating  to  turnpikes,  and  enacted  that  for- 
laws  should  continue  in  force,  except  as  they  were 
thereby  varied  or  repealed;  that  the  trustees  should  keep 
their  accounts  in  a  book  to  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  the 
trustees  and  creditors  of  the  tolls,  and  that  the  book  of  their 
eedings  should  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  the  trustees. 
It  was  held  that  the  provision  in  the  local  act  giving  aright 
of  access  to  all  persons  was  repealed.22  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  grant  by  the  legislature  of  a  power  or  right  which 
is  inconsistent  with  one  already  possessed  will  repeal  or 
modify  it.23  It  is  different  and  inconsistent  when  its  exer- 
cise is  made  to  depend  on  different  conditions,  or  it  is  con- 
ditioned on  different  things.24  So,  conferring  a  new  right 
will  displace  and  repeal  one  previously  granted,  where  their 
co-existence  would  be  inconvenient,  or  it  otherwise  is  justly 
inferable  that  the  legislature  intended  a  repeal.25  It  will, 
however,  be  deemed  cumulative  if  there  are  no  negative 
words  and  no  positive  repugnance.26 

§  255  (146).  Repeal  by  radical  change  of  leading  part 
or  system. —  An  intention  to  repeal  certain  statutory  pro- 
visions maybe  inferred  from  radical  changes  or  abolition 
of  the  leading  parts  of  the  statute  to  which  they  were  con- 
ditions or  ancillary.27     The  7  Geo.  I.,  chapter  21,  prohibited 

-li  Chamberlain  v.  Chamberlain,  2S  Steward   v.  Greaves,  10  M.  & 

V.  434,  138,  439.  W.  711;  OTIaherty  v.  McDowell,  G 

22 Rex  v.   Northleach  &  Witney  11.  1..  Ca&  142;  Davison  v.  Farmer, 

,  5B,  &  A.d  6  Ex.  242,  256;    Chapman   v.    Mil- 

rah  v.  Ottawa,  32  111.  121,  83  vian.  ."i  Kx.  61. 

Am.    Dec.    255;    Gibbons   v.    Brit-  2(i Cohen  v.  Texas  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

tenum,  56  Misa  232;  Farley  v.  De  2  Woods,  346 

Witters.  J  Daly.  192.  T'  Mis-ouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.   v.  Park, 

winner  v.  Lehigh,  etc.  R.  R.  66  Kan.  248,  71  Pac.  .186;  State  v. 

55  Pa  St  126.  Kstep,  GO  Kan.  416,  71  Pac.  857. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  491 

bottomry  loans  by  Englishmen  to  foreigners  on  foreign 
ships  engaged  in  the  Indian  trade.  This  restriction  was 
held  silently  repealed  by  the  subsequent  enactments  which 
put  an  end  to  the  monopoly  of  the  East  India  Company  and 
threw  its  trade  open  to  foreign  as  well  as  to  British  ships.28 
An  act  providing  an  entirely  new  system  for  the  compen- 
sation of  county  officers  repeals  all  prior  laws  on  the  sub- 
ject.29 In  the  case  cited  the  court  says:  "But  if  a  statute 
embrace  the  essential  provisions  of  an  antecedent  one  on 
the  same  subject,  and  formulate  a  new  system,  the  inten- 
tion that  the  new  shall  be  a  substitute  for  the  old  is 
manifest,  although  there  be  no  expressed  intention  to  that 
effect." 

§  256  (147).  Effect  of  clause  repealing  all  acts  and  parts 
of  acts  inconsistent  with  new  law. —  Affirmative  statutes 
which  contain  no  reference  to  existing  statutes,  either  to 
amend  or  repeal  them,  import  that  the  law-maker  has  no 
conscious  purpose  to  affect  them,  unless  by  congruous  addi- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  when  there  is  inserted  in  a  stat- 
ute a  provision  declaring  a  repeal  of  all  inconsistent  acts 
and  parts  of  acts,  there  is  an  assumption  that  the  new  rule 
to  some  extent  is  repugnant  to  some  law  enacted  before. 
There  is  a  repeal  to  the  extent  of  any  repugnancy  in  either 
case,  but  no  farther.  The  insertion,  therefore,  of  such  a 
general  repealing  clause  adds  nothing  to  the  repealing 
effect  of  the  act.30  But  some  cases  hold  that  the  insertion  of 
such  a  clause  has  a  restraining  effect  on  the  repealing  force 
of  the  new  statute,31  and  that  a  new  statute  intended  as  a 

28  The  India,  Brown  &  L.  221.  So.  824;  Birmingham  B.  &  L.  Ass'n 

29  Commonwealth  v.  Mann,  168  v.  May  &  T.  Hardware  Co.,  99  Ala. 
Pa.  St.  290,  31  Atl.  1003;  Common-  276,  13  So.  612;  Bank  of  British 
wealth  v.  Allegheny  County,  168  North  Am.  v.  Cahn,  79  Cal.  463,  21 
Pa.  St.  303,  31  Atl.  1061.  Pac.   863;    De  Gravelle   v.   Iberia, 

so  Reading  v.  Shepp,  2  Pa.  Dist.  etc.  Dr.  Disk,  104  La.  703.  29  So. 
Ct.  137;  North  Towanda  v.  Brad-  302;  People  v.  McAllister,  10  Utah, 
ford  County,  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  517;  357,  37  Pac.  578;  Pierce  v.  Corn- 
State  v.  Yardley,  95  Tenn.  546,  32  meicial  Invest.  Co.,  30  Wash.  272, 
S.  W.  481,  34  L.  R.  A.  <\:><\.  70  Pac.  496. 

31  Maxwell  v.  State,  89  Ala.  150,  7 


KEl'EALS    AM>    REPEALING    A0T8. 


substitute  or  revision  of  a  former  one,  if  it  has  this  general 
repealing  clause,  will  not  repeal  the  provisions  of  the  for- 
mer  law  which  are  nol   inconsistent  with  the  new.M    The 

clause  repealing  all  inconsistent  acts  and  parts  of  acts  has 
sometimes  been  classed  with  express  repeals,"  hut  it  has 
been  held  not  to  he  an  express  repeal  within  the  meaning  of 
a  constitutional  provision  as  to  repeals.34  It  is  to  be  sup- 
posed  that  courts  will  be  less  inclined  against  recognizing 
repugnancy  in  applying  such  statutes,  while,  in  dealing 
with  those  of  the  other  class,  they  will,  as  principle  and 
authority  requires,  be  astute  to  find  some  reasonable  mode 
of  reconciling  them  with  prior  statutes,  so  as  to  avoid 
a  repeal  by  implication.35  An  act  in  general  terms  repeal- 
ing all  conflicting  provisions  of  previous  acts,  it  is  said,  will 
have  the  effect  to  repeal  all  acts  identical  with  any  of  those 


32  Johnson  v.  Southern  Mut.  B.  & 
L.  Ass'n,  97  Ga.  622,  25  S.  E.  358; 
People  v.  Van  Pelt,  130  Mich.  621, 
90  N.  W.  424;  Harden  v.  Wells,  14 
Mont.  402,  36  Pac.  104G;  Jobb  v. 
gher  County,  20  Mont.  424,  51 
Pac.  10:34;  State  v.  Craig,  22  Ohio 
C.  C.  441;  Hurst  v.  Samuels,  29  S. 
C.  47G,  7  S.  E.  822;  Co  operative  S. 
&  L.  Assn  v.  Fawick,  11  S.  D.  89, 
79  N.  W.  847;  Cosh-Murray  Co.  v- 
Tuttich,  10  Wash.  449,  38  Pac.  1134: 
Holden  v.  Minnesota,  137  U.  S.  483, 
11  S.  C.  Rep.  143,  34  L.  Ed.  734  But 
see  State  v.  Welbers,  11  S.  D.  86,  75 
X.  W.  820;  State  v.  Carron  Hill 
Co.,  4  Wash.  422,  30  Pac.  728; 

I,.  W.  Laws.  §  112a;  State 
v.  Kelley,  31  N.  J.  L.  75,  77;  Com- 
monwealth v.  ( Ihurcbill,  2  Met.  118. 
•late  v.  Yardley,  95  Tenn.  540, 
W.  481,  34  L.  R.  A.  656.  In 
this  case  the  court  Bays:  "The 
words  of  the  fourth  section,  'that 


all  laws  and  parts  of  laws  in  con- 
flict with  this  act  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  repealed,'  do  not  make 
it  an  expressly  repealing  act. 
Really  that  section  adds  nothing 
of  virtue  or  meaning  to  the  act, 
and  takes  nothing  from  it.  All 
prior  conflicting  laws  and  parts  of 
laws  were  impliedly  repealed  by 
the  former  sections  of  the  act,  and, 
as  a  consequence,  no  such  laws  or 
parts  of  laws  were  left  for  the 
fourth  section  to  operate  upon. 
That  section  was,  therefore,  use- 
less, and  of  no  force  or  effect  what- 
ever. It  had  no  office  to  perform 
and  performed  none.  Its  presence 
in  the  bill  did  not  make  the  act  a 
repealing  law  or  a  non-repealing 
law,  and  it  will  not  be  regarded  for 
the  purpose  of  vitiating  the  law, 
nor  will  it  be  permitted  to  have 
that  effect." 

*s  Rex  v.  Northleach  &  Witney 
Road,  5  B.  &  Ad.  978. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  45)3- 

expressly  repealed.36  But  such  a  clause  will  not  repeal 
what  is  merely  inconsistent  with  the  void  part  of  the  new 
law.37  The  insertion  of  this  clause  will  not  give  a  general 
act  any  additional  efficacy  to  repeal  local  or  special  laws.38 
A  statute  providing  a  remed}'  for  an  illegal  tax  should  not 
be  deemed  embraced  in  a  general  repeal  of  all  laws  relating 
to  assessments  in  an  act  prescribing  and  regulating  the 
method  of  assessing  taxes.39  A  general  clause  in  an  act 
otherwise  unconstitutional,  repealing  all  acts  and  parts  of 
acts  contravening  its  provisions,  will  have  no  effect;  for, 
being  void,  no  acts  or  parts  of  acts  could  contravene  its 
provisions.40  Nor  will  an  unconstitutional  amendment  im- 
pliedly repeal  the  original  act  by  reason  of  conflict.41 

§  257.  Effect  of  repeal  of  statute  adopted  by  refer- 
ence.—  A  statute  which  refers  to  and  adopts  the  provisions 
of  another  statute  is  not  repealed  by  the  subsequent  repeal 
of  the  original  statute  adopted,  but  the  provisions  adopted 
continue  in  force  so  far  as  the  new  statute  is  concerned,  the 
same  as  before  the  repeal.42  A  statute  providing  for  sub- 
mitting the  question  of  the  removal  of  a  county  seat  to  a 
popular  vote  at  the  April  election  was  held  not  affected  by 
a  statute  which  discontinued  such  elections  or  postponed 

^State  v.  Barrow,  30  La.  Ann.  State  v.  Carson,  6  Wash.  250,  33 
Pt.  I,  657.     In  Maboney  v.  Wright,  Pac.  428.     Se e  post,  §§  274-278. 
10  Irish  C.  L.  (N.  S.)  420,  Lefroy,  *•  Shear  v.  Commissioners,  14  Fla. 
C.  J.,  said :  "  It  is  settled  by  author-  146.    * 
ity  that  the  recital  of  an  intention  40  Ante,  §  246. 
merely,  in  a  subsequent  statute,  to  41  Ex  parte  Davis,  21  Fed.  396. 
repeal   a  former  specific    statute,  42  Phoenix  Ass.   Co.  v.  Fire   De- 
will  not  operate  by  implication  to  partment,  117  Ala.  631,  23  So.  843, 
repeal  the  former  statute,  and  that,  42  L.  R.  A.  468;  Shull  v.  Barton,  58 
in  order  to  effect  such  a  repeal,  Neb.  741,  79  N.  W.  732;  Wick  v.  Ft. 
there  must  be  a  clause  of  repeal  in  Plain,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  27  App.  Div. 
the  repealing  statute."  577,  50  N.  Y.  S.  479;  People  v.  Web- 

37  Board  of  County  Com'rs  v.  ster,  8  Misc.  133,  28  N.Y.  S.  646; 
First  Nat.  Bank,  6  Colo.  App.  423,  Sika  v.  Chicago,  etc  R.  R.  Co.,  21 
40  Pac.  894.  Wis.    370;     Schwenke     v.     Union 

38  Town  School  Dist.  v.  School  Depot  &  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Colo.  512,  5 
District,  72  Vt.  451,  48  AtL  697;  Pac.  810;  Regina  v.  Stock,  3  Nev. 

&  Perry,  420. 


\\>  [  i;i  i-i    \i  9    AM'    1:1  ,i'l  \\  [NG    A.OTS. 

thera  until  October.  These  Btatates  are  not  laws  on  the 
same  subject.  The  former  should  be  construed  as  fixing 
the  time  for  taking  the  vote,  and  would  uot  bo  ohanged  if 

\pril  elections  for  eleotion  of  officers  were  abolished.41 
The  re-enactment  of  some  of  the  sections  of  one  act,  in  a 

quent  one  providing  for  a  different  scheme,  is  not  a 

repeal  by  implication  of  these  sections  in  the  first  act;  nor 

s  a  provision  in  the  second  act  suspending  the  operation 

of  the  similar  sections  in  that  act  have  the  effect  to  suspend 

the  operation  of  those  in  the  first  act,44 

§  258  (1*8).  Reconcilement  of  affirmative  statutes- 
Illustrations.— The  cases  are  very  numerous  in  which  an 
important  question  is  decided  upon  the  general  principle 
that  a  statute  without  negative  words  will  not  repeal  exist- 
ing statutes,  unless  there  is  an  unavoidable  repugnancy.  A 
nee  to  a  multitude  of  such  cases  has  been  given  in  a 
note  to  another  section.45  It  is  not  an  exhaustive  list,  but 
is  lull  enough  for  practical  purposes.     It  is  now  proposed 

naly^e  a  few  well-considered  cases  to  illustrate  the 
practical  operation  of  the  principle  requiring  the  reconcile- 
ment, if  possible,  of  statutes,  where  there  is  a  question  of 
inconsistency  between  them. 

In  McCool  v.  Smith46  a  plaintiff  claiming  title  by  descent 
from  an  illegitimate  child  brought  ejectment,  having,  as 
the  law  then  stood,  no  title.  Tending  the  action  a  retro- 
spective amendatory  act  was  passed  giving  effect  to  an  ex- 
isting aet  from  an  earlier  date  and  thereby  covering  the 
date  of  the  descent  in  question,  conferring  the  right  to  in- 
herit on  such  children  "  the  same  as  if  such  act  had  been  in 
force  at  the  time  of  such  death."  This  amendatory  statute 
was  held  not  to  repeal,  as  to  such  cases,  the  common-law 
rule,  and  a  state  statute  declaratory  of  it,  requiring  a 
plaintiff  to  have  title  at  the  commencement  of  his  action. 

general  rule  being  that  repeals  by  implication  are  not 
ored,  there  will   be  no  such  repeal  if  it  be  possible  to 

«  Cole  v.  Supervisors.il  Iowa,  553.        *5  Ante,  g  239. 

4il  Shepard,  1-  N.  Y.  5 10.        4«  1  Black,  459,  17  L.  Ed.  218. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  495 

reconcile  the  two  acts.  The  court,  by  Swayne,  J.,  said: 
"  It  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  two  acts.  It  may  well  be 
that  the  legislature  intended  to  vest  the  title  retrospectively 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  effect  to  mesne  conveyances  and 
preventing  frauds,  without  intending  also  to  throw  the 
burden  of  the  costs  of  an  action  of  ejectment,  then  pending, 
upon  a  defendant  who,  as  the  law  and  facts  were  at  the 
commencement  of  the  action,  must  have  been  the  successful 
party.  A  stronger  case  than  this  must  be  presented  to  in- 
duce us  to  sanction  such  a  result  by  our  judgment.  If  the 
plaintiff  can  recover,  it  must  be  in  an  action  brought  after 
the  16th  of  February,  1857.  He  cannot  recover  upon  a 
title  acquired  since  the  commencement  of  the  suit." 

In  a  curative  act  it  was  provided  that  when  an  instrument 
made  in  good  faith  and  on  a  valuable  consideration,  and 
intended  to  operate  as  a  conveyance,  is  placed  on  record  in 
the  county  where  the  lands  lie,  and  the  paper  has  a  defect 
in  some  statutory  requisites  in  the  acknowledgment  or  cer- 
tificate of  acknowledgment,  the  record  shall  operate  as  legal 
notice  of  all  the  rights  secured  by  the  instrument.  Six  years 
afterwards  the  legislature  enacted  an  amendment  to  the 
statutes  relative  to  deeds  by  adding  a  section  prohibiting 
the  recording  of  such  defective  conveyances.  This  was  held 
not  a  repeal  of  the  curative  act.  "  Bepeals  by  implication," 
say  the  court,  "  are  not  favored,  and  there  is  certainly  much 
room  for  both  .of  these  statutes  to  operate  without  conflict. 
Both  are  designed  to  guard  and  secure  rights;  not  to  impair 
or  destroy  them.  And  the  grounds  of  policy  for  the  [cura- 
tive statute],  as  one  to  operate  in  future,  were  as  evident 
[when  the  other  was  subsequently  passed];  and  when  the 
legislature  required  registers  to  abstain  from  recording  de- 
fective papers,  they  were  well  aware  that  such  papers  after 
all  would  sometimes  get  on  record,  and  that  important  in- 
terests might  be  sacrificed  unless  some  effect  should  be  given 
to  such  records.  Accepting  this  as  a  true  and  practical  view 
of  the  matter,  they  allowed  the  [curative  act]  to  remain  ;md 
endeavored  by  [the  other  act]  to  lessen  the  occasions  for  its 


R]   1!  AIS     AM>     Kl   IT  Al  [NO    ACTS. 

application."41  A  Mississippi  aot  passed  in  1 852 appropriated 
a  fund  derived  from  a  certain  source,  then  in  the  state 
ary,  to  the  several  counties  to  be  expended  for  a  speci- 
fied purpose.  A  portion  of  this  appropriated  fund  was  still 
in  the  treasury  in  lsr>7,  and  was  largely  increased  by  accre- 
tions subsequently  to  the  appropriation.  The  legislature,  by 
an  amendment  passed  the  last  mentioned  year,  not  referring 
to  the  other  nor  specially  to  the  money  appropriated  by  it, 
directed  a  different  use  of  the  moneys  then  in  the  treasury. 
It  was  held  possible  to  reconcile  these  acts.  The  portion 
of  the  fund  which  was  in  the  treasury  in  1852  was  held 
still  appropriated  and  subject  to  the  act  of  that  year,  and 
that  act  not  repealed;  that  the  subsequent  act  related  only 
to  the  residue;  that  thus  the  acts  could  stand  together." 

§  259.  Repeal  by  implication  —  Particular  acts  con- 
strued—  Acts  relating  to  the  liquor  traffic. —  Two  acts 
were  passed  at  one  session  of  the  legislature;  the  first  one 
taking  effect  imposed  a  license  tax,  for  the  state  S300,  and 
for  the  county  $400,  upon  every  vendor  of  spirituous,  vinous 
or  malt  liquors,  doing  business  for  one  year  or  less,  and  pro- 
vided that  any  person  who  should  engage  in  the  sale  thereof 
without  having  paid  this  tax  should,  on  conviction,  be  fined 
in  double  the  amount  of  the  license.  The  other  act  was  to 
regulate  for  police  purposes  the  same  traffic ;  it  prescribed 
a  penalty  of  not  less  than  two  hundred  nor  more  than  five 
hundred  dollars  for  clandestine  sales.  It  was  held  that  there 
was  no  repeal.  The  last  act  was  intended  to  punish  for  occa- 
sional sales  of  liquor  by  unauthorized  persons  having  no  bar- 
rooms or  regular  places  of  business,  and  whoso  sales  would 
be  no  particular  detriment  to  the  revenue;  the  other  act 
applied  to  those  who  engaged  in  selling  as  a  business.49  An 
art  prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  in  four  counties,  one  of 
which  contained  a  city  of  the  fourth  class.  A  later  law  au- 
thorized cities  of  the  fourth  class  to  prohibit,  license  and 

47  Brown  v.  McCormick,  28  Mich.  «  McAfee  v.  Southern  R.  R  Co.,  36 
215.  Misa  669. 

*'■>  Black  well  v.  State,  45  Ark.  90. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  497 

regulate  the  liquor  traffic.  This  was  held  to  repeal  the  for- 
mer law  as  to  such  city.50  A  local-option  law  applicable  to 
part  of  a  county  was  held  to  be  repealed  by  a  subsequent 
license  law  applicable  to  the  whole  county.51  An  act  pro- 
hibiting the  sale  of  liquor  within  five  miles  of  specified 
churches  was  held  not  to  repeal  an  act  granting  to  a  city 
within  the  five-mile  limit  the  power  to  regulate  the  sale  of 
liquor.52  An  act  similar  to  the  former  was  held  not  to  be 
repealed,  as  to  a  town  within  the  prescribed  limits,  by  the 
mere  passage  of  a  later  act  giving  such  town  the  power  to 
license  such  sale;  but  it  was  held  the  prohibitory  act  would 
continue  in  force  until  the  town  acted  under  the  power 
given.53  A  statute  of  Kentucky  authorized  Hardin  county 
by  vote  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  liquor  therein.  The  vote  was 
taken  and  prohibition  adopted.  A  later  act  provided  that 
the  question  should  be  again  submitted  to  the  voters  of  the 
county  and  the  vote  taken  by  districts.  The  old  act  was 
held  to  remain  in  force  until  a  vote  was  taken,  and  after  that 
in  such  districts  as  voted  for  prohibition.54  An  act  which 
provides  for  the  inspection  of  liquors  is  not  repealed  by  an 
act  to  regulate  their  sale.55  A  law  against  selling  liquor 
without  a  license  was  held  not  to  be  repealed  by  a  subse- 
quent act  which  prohibited  the  keeping  a  place  where  liq- 
uors were  received  or  kept  for  unlawful  sale  or  use,  and 
which  also  made  the  sale  of  such  liquors  a  crime.56  A  gen- 
eral law  imposing  a  penalty  for  selling  without  a  license  is 
not  repealed  or  affected  by  a  later  act  authorizing  cities  of 
the  third  class  to  license  and  regulate  such  sale  and  to  im- 
pose a  penalty  for  violating  the  ordinances  passed  under 

5"  Brown  v.  Commonwealth,   98    Tabor  v.  Lander,  94  Ky.  237,  21  S. 
Ky.  652,  34  S.  W.  12.  W.  1056;  State  v.  Witter,  107  N.  C. 

51  Yunger  v.  State,  78  Md.  574,  28    792,  12  S.  E.  328. 

Atl.  404.  54Kirkpatrick  v.  Commonwealth, 

52  Hart  v.  State,  88  Ga.  635,  15  S.     95  Ky.  320,  25  S.  W.  113. 

E.  684.  »5  state  v.  Meek,  26  Wash.  405,  67 

53  Gilmore  v.  State,  125  Ala.  59,  28    Pac.  70. 

So.  3S2.     To  same  effect,  State  v.        «<  State  v.  McCoy,  86  Minn.  149, 
Snow,  117  N.  C.  774,  23  S.  E.  322;    90  N.  W.  305. 
32 


K!  i'i   \i  5    am>    REPEALING    acts. 

such  power.67  Al statute  making  it  unlawful  for  any  maker, 
brewer  or  distiller  of  beer  or  other  intoxicating  liquor,  or 
other  person  or  corporation,  to  sol  1  or  deliver  any  beer  or 
other  intoxicating  liquor  in  the  District  of  Columbia  on  Sun- 
day, was  held  not  to  repeal  a  prior  act  which  permitted 
hotel  keepers  to  sell  to  their  guests  at  their  meals  or  in  their 
rooms  on  Sunday.53  An  act  imposing  a  penalty  on  any 
minor  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  who,  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
ducing any  person  to  sell  or  give  him  liquor,  represents  to 
such  person  that  he  is  twenty-one,  was  held  not  to  repeal  a 
prior  act  making  it  a  misdemeanor  to  sell  liquor  to  minors.59 
§  260.  Same  —  Acts  relating  to  courts,  jurisdiction, 
practice,  procedure,  etc. —  A  subsequent  statute  which 
institutes  new  methods  of  proceeding  does  not,  without 
negative  words,  repeal  a  former  statute  relative  to  proced- 
ure.60 The  statute  authorizing  a  proceeding  to  contest  the 
validity  of  a  will  "  by  petition  to  the  court  of  common  pleas" 
does  uot  repeal  the  provisions  of  the  former  statute  author- 
izing a  proceeding  by  bill  in  chancery.61  A  statute  which 
authorizes  a  certain  oath  to  be  taken  before  a  particular 
officer  is  not  repealed  by  a  statute  which  extends  the  power 
to  administer  oaths  to  a  class  of  officers.62  A  statute  giv- 
ing a  new  remedy  does  not  take  away  a  remedy  previously 
existing.63  A  statute  conferring  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
certain  cases  upon  a  particular  court  repeals  a  law  giving 
the  same  jurisdiction  to  another  court.64  An  act  requiring 
motions  for  new  trials  to  be  filed  within  two  days  after  the 

»7  State  v.  Hoeffner,  9  Wash.  0S0,  62  Ruck  man  v.  Ransom,  35  N.  J. 

-  Pac.  157.     To  same  effect,  State  L.  565. 

v.  Carter,  28  S.  C.  1,  4  S.  E.  790.  63  Racho  v.  Detroit,  90  Mich.  92, 

strict  of  Columbia  v.  Reut-  51  N.  W.  3G0;  Brandon  v.  Carter, 

ter,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  237.  119  Mo.  572,  24  S.  W.  1035,  41  Am. 

,te  v.  Gulley,  41  Ore.  318,  70  St.  Rep.  673;    State  v.  Martin,  68 

Paa  Vt.  93,  34  AtL  40;  Fisher  v.  Bald- 

arp  v.  Warren,  6  Price,  131;  ridge,  91  Tenn.  418,  19  S.  W.  227; 

Mitchell  v.  Duncan,  7  Fla.  ia  Watts  v.  Wilson,  93  Ky.  495,  20  S. 

•    Raudebaugh  v.  Shelley,  G  Ohio  W.  505. 

307.  i;1  Cassenheimer    v.   District    of 

Columbia,  6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  108. 


REPEALS    AXD    REPEALING    ACTS.  499 

verdict  was  held  not  to  repeal  a  prior  statute  authorizing 
the  court  for  good  cause  shown  to  enlarge  the  time  fixed 
by  statute  for  doing  any  act,  even  after  the  time  has  ex- 
pired.05 A  statute  giving  a  mode  of  serving  process  on 
corporations  does  not  repeal  a  prior  statute  providing  a 
different  mode.66  A  law  requiring  appeals  from  county 
commissioners  to  be  taken  within  twenty  days  is  repealed 
by  a  later  law  allowing  three  months  for  such  appeals.67 
An  act  that  the  presiding  judge,  when  interested,  may  grant 
a  change  of  venue  on  his  own  motion  is  not  repealed  by  an 
act  providing  for  a  change  of  venue  on  petition.68  A  stat- 
ute making  parties  competent  witnesses  was  held  not  to  re- 
peal statutory  provisions  giving  the  chancery  court  power 
to  compel  a  discovery  in  suits  by  judgment  creditors.69  A 
provision  that  violations  of  the  gambling  act  should  be 
prosecuted  by  indictment  was  held  to  be  repealed  by  a  later 
statute,  which  authorized  all  misdemeanors  to  be  prose- 
cuted by  information.70  A  statute  authorizing  the  chancel- 
lor to  require  the  complainant  to  give  a  bond  before  ap- 
pointing a  receiver  was  held  to  repeal  a  prior  statute  which 
expressly  made  the  requiring  of  such  bond  discretionary.71 
An  act  provided  for  holding  two  additional  terms  of  the 
circuit  court  of  Cedar  County,  at  El  Dorado  Springs,  which 
was  other  than  the  regular  place  of  holding  the  court,  and 
provided  for  selecting  a  court-room,  keeping  the  records, 
etc.  A  subsequent  general  act  in  regard  to  the  holding  of 
circuit  courts  provided  for  two  terms  in  Cedar  county  at 
different  times  than  those  fixed  for  the  terms  at  El  Dorado 
Springs.     This  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  former  act.72 

6s  Leavenworth    v.    Billings,    26  69  McCreery  v.  Cobb,  93  Mich.  463, 

Wash.  1,  66  Pac.  107.  53  N.  W.  613. 

66  Lesser  Cotton  Co.  v.  Yates,' 09  ™  Territory  v-  Cutinola,  4  N.  M. 

Ark.  396,  63  S.  W.  997;  Congdon  v.  303,  14  Pac.  809. 

Butte  Consol.  Ry.  Co.,  17  Mont.  481,  71  David  v.  Levy,  119  Ala.  241,  24 

43  Pac.  629.  So.  589. 

6TBaum  v.  Sweeny, 5  Wash        >  '-State  v.  Stratton,  136  Mo.  423, 

32  Pac.  778.  38  S.  W.  83. 

6S  Wallace  v.  Jameson,  179  Pa.  St. 
98,  36  Atl.  112. 


kiitai  B    AM>    i;i  PEALING    ACTS. 

§  261.  Same — Acts  relating  to  officers,  their  election, 
appointment,  removal,  fees,  compensation,  etc. —  A  stat- 
nte  providing  a  new  mode  of  filling  an  office  by  election  or 
appointmenl  repeals  by  implication  prior  laws  fixing  a  dif- 
ferent A  statute  provided  for  the  election  by  the 
people  of  U.  of  "astreet  commissioner  to  superintend  the 
3,  roads  and  bridges  of  said  city."  This  was  held  to 
repeal  prior  laws  authorizing  the  city  council  to  elect  ten 
street  commissioners.74  An  act  authorizing  the  city  council 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  to  remove  any  city  officer  for  any  of- 
fense against  the  character  or  duty  of  his  office  is  not 
repealed  by  a  subsequent  act  providing  for  the  removal  of 
public  officers  by  the  circuit  court  because  of  drunkenness, 
on  complaint  of  any  citizen,  nor  by  an  act  providing  for 
their  impeachment  and  removal  on  an  accusation  by  the 
grand  jury.75  The  acts  all  being  affirmative  may  be  con- 
strued together  as  providing  cumulative  remedies. 

A  later  act  fixing  the  salary  or  fees  of  an  officer  repeals  a 
prior  act  fixing  a  different  salary  or  fees.76  A  statute  fixing 
the  annual  salary  of  a  public  office  at  a  sum  certain,  without 
limitation  as  to  time,  is  not  abrogated  or  suspended  by  sub- 
sequent  enactments  which  merely  appropriate  a  less  amount 
for  the  services  of  that  office  for  particular  fiscal  years,  and 
which  contain  no  words  that  expressly  or  by  clear  implica- 
tion modify  or  repeal  the  previous  law.77  A  law  fixing  the 
of  an  officer  lor  certain  services  does  not  repeal  a  prior 

73  pavey  v.  Utter,  132  111.  489,  24  7(i  Pierpont  v.  Crouch,  10  Cal.  315; 

N.    EL  77;  State  v.  Howe,  28  Neb.  Humer  v.  Cumberland  County,  4 

618,  44  N.  W.  874;  Browne  v.  Cum-  Pa.  Dist  Ct.  588;  Eckerd  v.  Perry 

lounty,  31  Neb.  302,  47  N.  W.  County,  6  Pa.  DistCt.  284;  Price  v. 

Bendrix's  Account,  146  Pa.  Blair  County,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  31:); 

A  i  L  I  5;  Commonwealth  McAllister  v.  Armstrong  County,  6 

v.  Taylor,   159  Pa.  St.  451,  28  Atl.  Pa.   Dist.   Ct.   766.     See   Leitzel   v. 

Centre  County,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  208. 

'■'•  Eaton  v.  Burke,  66  N.  H.  306,  77  United  States  v.  Langston,  118 

22  At  .  U.  S.  389,  6  S.  C.  Rep.  1185,30  L.  Ed. 

v.    Noblesville,   157   Ind.  164. 
31,  80  N.  K.  704 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  501 

law  fixing  his  fees  for  other  services.78  An  act  fixed  the 
salary  of  the  supreme  court  reporter  at  $600  a  year.  A 
later  act  of  1891  fixed  the  salary  of  the  secretary  of  state  at 
$2,400  a  year  and  an  act  of  1893  made  the  secretary  of  state 
ex  officio  supreme  court  reporter.  The  later  acts  were  held 
not  to  repeal  the  earlier,  and  the  secretary  of  state  was  held 
entitled  to  both  salaries.79  Prior  acts  gave  to  county  com- 
missioners a  per  diem  and  mileage.  An  act  of  1890  provided 
that  they  should  receive  five  dollars  a  day  for  each  day  em- 
ployed in  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  It  was  held  that 
the  provision  for  mileage  was  repealed.80  An  act  gave  to  a 
judge  of  the  supreme  court,  holding  court  in  any  county, 
"  mileage  at  the  rate  of  twenty  cents  per  mile,  in  going  from 
his  residence  to  the  place  where  said  court  is  held,  and 
returning  therefrom,  as  his  expenses  incurred  for  and  on 
account  of  travel  incurred  for  the  benefit  of  said  countv." 
A  later  act  provided  that  county  officers,  jurors,  witnesses 
and  all  other  parties  that  may  be  entitled  to  mileage  from 
the  several  counties  should  be  entitled  to  collect  mileage  at 
the  rate  of  fifteen  cents  per  mile  for  the  distance  actually 
traveled  and  no  more.  This  was  held  not  to  repeal  the 
former  act,  as  the  mileage  allowed  the  judges  was  intended 
to  cover  other  expenses  than  travel.81  A  provision  that  the 
compensation  of  an  officer  shall  not  be  increased  or  dimin- 
ished during  the  term  for  which  he  was  elected  or  appointed 
is  not  repealed  by  an  act  authorizing  an  increase  in  the 
compensation  of  aldermen  and  an  ordinance  making  such 
increase.82  A  statute  provided  that  the  state  should  be 
deemed  a  party  defendant  in  every  suit  for  divorce,  and  that 
the  district  attorney  should  be  allowed  a  fee  of  ten  dollars 
for  defending  for  the  state,  to  be  paid  by  the  plaintiff  on 

78  Randall  v.  Butler  County,  65  81  Power    v.    County    Com'rs,    7 
Kan.  20,  68  Pac.  1083.  Mont.  82.  16  Pac.  658. 

79  State  v.  La  Grave,  23  Nev.  373,  82  Council  Bluffs  v.  Waterman, 
48  Pac.  674.  86  Iowa,  688,  53  N.  W.  289. 

8"  State  v.  Beman,  15  Wash.  24, 
45  Pac.  652. 


i:i  PEALS    ami    i;i  PEALING    A.CTS. 

commencing  the  suit.  A  Inter  act  relating  to  court,  fees  a  nd 
the  fees  of  other  officers  provided  that  the  fees  specified 
should  be  in  lieu  of  all  fees  which  parties  had  theretofore 
been  required  to  pay  clerks,  sheriffs,  and  all  other  officials, 
and  that  "noother  fees  than  those  hereinbefore  recited  shall 
hereafter  be  exacted."  District  attorneys  were  not  referred 
to  in  the  act,  and  it  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  provision 
for  his  fee  in  divorce  suits.83 

§  262.  Same  —  Acts  relating  to  municipal  corpora- 
tions.—  An  act  to  incorporate  the  city  of  Pineville  repeals 
by  implication  the  charter  of  the  town  of  Pineville.84  An 
act  which  incorporates  the  territory  of  four  municipalities 
into  one  as  a  cit\r  repeals  the  charters  of  the  separate  mu- 
nicipalities.85 An  act  providing  for  the  construction  of  local 
improvements  by  one  mode  of  procedure  is  not  repealed  by 
a  later  and  more  comprehensive  act  providing  for  their 
construction  by  a  different  mode  of  procedure.**  Two  acts 
were  passed  at  the  same  session,  and  by  their  terms  to  take 
ict  on  the  same  day;  one  provided  for  the  organization 
of  towns  whenever  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  any 
congressional  township  containing  twenty-five  legal  voters 
should  petition;  the  other  was  a  provision  that  no  town 
shall  be  vacated,  nor  any  town  with  an  area  of  thirty-six 
tions  or  less  be  divided  or  have  any  part  stricken  there- 
from, without  first  submitting  the  question  to  the  electors 
of  the  town.  It  was  held  that  they  could  stand  together; 
the  former  conferring  a  power  in  general  terms  and  the 
latter  imposing  a  limitation.97  An  act  which  gave  a  remedy 
for  damages  by  a  change  of  grade  was  held  not  to  be  repealed 

ite  v.  Moore,  37  Ore,  536,  62  112G;  .Hanover  Borough's  Appeal, 

150  Pa.  St.  202,  24  Atl.  669;   West 

tli  v.  Critcher,  92  Ky.  586, 18  Chester  Alley,  160  Pa.  St.  89,  28  Atl. 

s.  \V.  52L  500;  Palo  Alto  Road,  160  Pa.  St.  10J, 

.'  ii  Morgantown  v.  Morgan-  28  Atl.  649;  Beltzhoover  Borough  v. 

town,  49  W.  Va.  7,".).  10  S.  Ii  15.  Beltzhoover's  Heirs,  173  Pa.  St.  213, 

•   Job  v.  Alton,  189  111.  256,  50  N.  33  Atl.  1017. 

Am.  St.  Rep.  448;  Hand  ^Supervisors  v.  Board  of  Com- 

v.  Fellows,  148  Pa.  St.  456,  23  Atl.  missioners,  12  Minn.  403. 


REPEALS   AND    REPEALING    ACTS  503 

by  a  later  act  which  provided  for  local  improvements  in 
general  and  for  the  assessment  of  the  damages  and  benefits 
resulting  therefrom.88  An  act  authorizing  cities  to  construct 
and  maintain  water-works  does  not  repeal  a  prior  act  au- 
thorizing the  organization  of  companies  to  supply  munici- 
palities with  water.89  "  An  act  to  revise  and  amend  the  tax 
laws  of  the  cit}'  of  Louisville,"  related  to  the  revenue  to 
meet  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  city.  This  was  held  not 
to  repeal  provisions  of  the  charter  which  provided  how  the 
city  might  contract  debts  beyond  the  ordinary  revenues.90 
A  grant  to  a  city  of  the  power  to  build  bridges  was  held 
not  to  take  away  the  power  of  the  county  to  build  bridges 
within  the  city  for  county  purposes.91 

§  263.  Same  —  Acts  relating  to  taxation,  revenue, 
bonds,  assessments,  etc. —  An  act  providing  a  new  mode 
of  levying  special  assessments  was  held  not  to  repeal  a 
former  law  on  the  subject,  but  to  afford  a  cumulative  rem- 
edy.92 An  act  exempting  school  and  church  property  from 
any  and  all  taxes  and  assessments  is  not  repealed  by  a  sub- 
sequent act  providing  in  a  general  way  for  special  assess- 
ments for  local  improvements.93  A  law  imposing  a  limit 
of  indebtedness  upon  counties  and  municipalities  is  not  re- 
pealed by  a  later  law  which  authorizes  the  incurring  of  a 
debt  for  certain  purposes.94  A  law  authorizing  counties  to 
issue  bonds  to  the  amount  of  two  per  cent,  of  the  assessed 
valuation  for  various  purposes,  including  the  construction 
and  repair  of  roads  and  bridges,  was  held  to  be  repealed  as 

83  Seaman  v.  "Washington,  172  Pa.  92  West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  v. 

St.  467,  33  Atl.  759;  Bowers  v.  Brad-  Farber,  171   111.   14G,  49  N.  E.  427; 

clock,  172  Pa.  St.  596,  33  Atl.  759;  Greensboro  v.  McAdoo,  112  N.  C. 

Hopkins  v.  Braddock,  172  Pa.  St.  359,  17  S.  E.  178. 

605,  34  Atl.  580.  93  District  of  Columbia  v.  Sisters 

89  White  v.  Meadville,  177  Pa.  St.  of  Visitation,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 

643,  35  Atl.  695,  34  L.  R.  A.  567.  300. 

9»Frantz  v.  Jacob,  88  Ky.  525,  11  94  Beck  v.  St.  Paul,  87  Minn.  381, 

S.  W.  654.  92  N.  W.  32& 

91  Skinner  v.  Henderson,  26  Fla. 
121,  7  So.  464,  8  L.  R.  A.  55 


Kl  P]  A  I  S    ANU    i;i  P]    \l  1N(,     ACTS. 

to  the  latter  purpose  by  an  aot  authorizing  the  issue  of 
bonds  for  suob  purpose  to  the  amount ofone  percent.98  An 
act  imposing  a  privilege  tax  for  state  revenue  purposes  does 
not  repeal  a  prior  act  imposing  such  tax  tor  municipal  pur- 
Hut  the  contrary  is  true  where  an  act  of  the  former 
nature  declares  that  the  tax  imposed  by  it  shall  be  in  lieu 
i^  all  other  taxes  except  <nl  rnl>>r<n,  taxes.97  A  law  im- 
posed a  privilege  tax  of  sl'o.i  a  year  for  each  company  rep- 
resented upon  the  privilege  of  opening  and  establishing  an 
insurance  otlice  or  agency  for  foreign  insurance  companies. 
This  was  held  not  to  be  repealed  by  a  later  law  imposing  a 
tax  of  two  and  one-half  per  cent,  on  the  gross  premium  re- 
ceipts of  foreign  insurance  companies  "in  lieu  of  all  other 
An  act  of  is97  forbade  the  sale  of  cigarettes.  A 
revenue  act  of  1899  imposed  a  privilege  tax  on  the  sale  of 
cigarettes,  not  sold  in  violation  of  the  criminal  law.  The 
latter  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  former  so  as  to  make  the 
sale  (.f  cigarettes  legitimate."  A  law  authorizing  counties 
to  levy  a  tax  for  the  support  of  the  poor  was  held  to  bfl  re- 
pealed by  a  subsequent  law  authorizing  counties  to  levy  not 
ling  three  mills  on  the  dollar  for  county  purposes,  the 
support  of  the  poor  being  a  county  purpose.1  A  law  pro- 
viding a  new  mode  of  apportioning  the  state  tax  repeals  the 
former  law  on  the  subject.2  A  city  charter  authorized  the 
issue  of  $125,000  of  bonds  for  the  construction  of  three  cer- 
tain bridges.  A  later  act  authorized  the  city  to  issue  §75,000 
of  bonds  for  three  certain  bridges,  two  of  which  were  the 
same  as  two  of  those  specified  in  the  charter.  The  later 
act  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  former,  but  to  be  cumulative, 
and  it  was  held  the  city  could  issue  $200,000  of  bonds  for 

irpby  v.  County  Com'rs,  73  "Blaufield  v.   State,   103  Term. 

Minn.  28,  76  X.  W.  951  593,  53  S.  W.  1090. 

ike    v.    Memphis,   94  Tenn.  l  Oregon  Short  Line  v.  Standing, 

3    \V.  7  t  ,\  10  Utah,  452,  37  Pac.  687. 

imphis  v.  Am.  Express  Co.,  -  State  v.   Linn  County,  25  Ore. 

102  Tenn.  836,  52  S.  W.  17-'.  503,  36  Pac.  297. 

lis     v.     Carrington,    91 
Tenn.  511,  19  S.  \V.  07J. 


EEPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  505 

the  purposes  specified.3  A  later  law  providing  for  the  same 
tax  as  a  former  law  repeals  the  latter.4  An  act  requiring 
county  auditors  to  publish  a  list  of  lands  sold  for  taxes,  and 
unredeemed,  was  held  to  be  repealed  by  a  later  law  requir- 
ing notice  of  the  expiration  of  the  period  of  redemption  to 
be  given  to  the  party  in  whose  name  the  land  was  assessed.5 

§  264.  Same  —  Acts  relating  to  married  women.— The 
statutes  giving  married  women  capacity  of  suing  and  being 
sued  without  the  husband  being  joined  repeal  by  implica- 
tion the  statutes  which  suspend  the  statute  of  limitations 
for  coverture  as  a  disability.6 

In  Emerson  v.  Clayton7  the  court  say:  "By  this  statute 
a  married  woman  must,  since  its  enactment,  be  considered 
a  feme  sole  in  regard  to  her  estate  of  every  sort  owned  by 
her  before  marriage,  or  which  she  may  acquire  during  cov- 
erture, in  good  faith,  from  any  person  not  her  husband,  by 
descent,  devise  or  otherwise,  together  with  the  rents,  issues, 
increase  and  profits  thereof.  .  .  .  They  designed  to 
make  and  did  make  a  radical  and  thorough  change  in  the 
condition  of  a  feme  covert.  She  is  unmarried,  so  far  as 
her  property  is  concerned,  and  can  deal  with  it  as  she 
pleases." 

Though  such  acts  do  not  purport  to  repeal  the  exemption 
of  married  women  from  the  operation  of  limitation  laws, 
they  manifestly  produce  that  result  by  a  reasonable  con- 

3Tillotson  v.  Saginaw,  94  Mich.  Smith,  50  Cal.  303;  Ong  v.  Sumner, 

240,  54  N.  W.  162.  1  Cincin.  Sup.  Ct.  424;  Ball  v.  Bul- 

4  Commissioner  of  Sinking  Fund  lard,  52  Barb.  141;  Hick's  Estate,  7 

v.  Grainger,  98  Ky.  319,  32  S.  W.  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  274.     The  exemption 

954.  of  married  women  in  New  York 

sBeumer  v.  Woll,  86  Minn.  294,  from  the  operation  of  the  statute 

90  N.  W.  530;  Kenaston   v.  Great  was  re-enacted  in  the  code  after 

Northern  Ry.  Co.,  59  Minn.  35,  60  the  passage  of  the  act  enabling 

N.  W.  813.  married  women  to  sue.     See  Clark 

6Haywardv.   Gunn,  82  III.  385;  v.  McCann,  18  Hun,  13;  Dunham  v. 

Castner  v.  Walrod,  83  id.  171;  Enos  Sage,  52  N.  Y.229;  Acker  v.  Acker, 

v.  Buckley,  94  id.  458;    Geisen  v.  81  id.  143;  Clarke  v.  Gibbons,  83  id. 

Heiderich,    104   id.   537;  Brown  v.  107. 

Cousens,   51  Me.   301;  Cameron  v.  733111,490 


506  P]  M  a    AM<    R]  PEALING    A.OT8. 

Btruction  of  the  language  used  in  connection  with  the  scope, 
purpose  and  objeot  of  the  statute.8 

By  statute  as  well  as  by  the  common  law  in  Indiana  prior 
to  1SSU  a  husband  and  wife,  upon  a  i\<i'i\  made  to  both,  be- 
came neither  joint  tenants  nor  tenants  in  common,  but  were 
I  of  the  entirety,  so  that  on  the  death  of  either  the 
survivor  took  the  whole;  and  during  their  lives  neither 
could  convey  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  nor  could 
any  part  of  the  land  be  taken  on  execution  for  the  separate 
debt  of  either.  This  doctrine  was  not  abolished  or  repealed 
by  implication  by  the  act  passed  in  18S1,  providing  that 
"  A  married  woman  may  take,  acquire  and  hold  property, 
real  or  personal,  by  conveyance,  gift,  devise  or  descent,  or 
by  purchase  with  her  separate  means  or  money;  and  the 
same,  together  with  the  rents,  issues,  income  and  profits 
of,  shall  be  and  remain  her  own  separate  property, 
and  under  her  own  control,  the  same  as  if  she  were  unmar- 
ried. "  It  was  held  that  these  laws  could  stand  together. 
A  married  woman  may  well  have  all  the  personal  rights 
conferred  by  the  act  of  1S81  as  to  her  separate  property, 
without  any  interference  or  collision  with  the  statutes  as 
to  entireties.  When  husband  and  wife  take  by  entireties 
neither  of  them  holds  any  of  the  property  separatel}7.9 

A  statute  of  Oregon  of  1853  provided  that  the  will  of  an 
unmarried  woman  should  be  deemed  to  be  revoked  by  her 
subsequent  marriage.  It  was  held  that  this  was  not  re- 
pealed by  a  later  law  providing  that  a  written  will  could 
only  be  revoked  by  another  written  will,  or  unless  canceled 
and  destroyed  by  the  testator  himself  or  by  someone  in  his 

tner  v.   Walrod,  83  111.  171;  the  court  so  long  as  might  be  nec- 

Kibbe  v.  Ditto,  93  U.  S.  674,  23  L.  essary  to  finish  the  business  pend- 

Ed.  1005.     See  Hershy  v.  Latham,  ing  therein;  held  not  repealed  by  a 

42  Ark.  305;  State  v.  Trout  man,  72  later  act  containing  the  same  pro- 

551;  Briggs   v.  Smith,  83  id.  vision,  with  some  unimportant  ad- 
ditions a-  to  matters  of  detail,  and 

er  v.  Smith,  00  Ind.  222.  40  a    further    provision    authorizing 

Am.    Rep.   210.     An  act   provided  special  terms  also.  C'ordell  v.  State, 

for  extending  the  regular  term  of  22  Ind.  1. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING   ACTS.  507 

presence  and  by  his  direction,  as  this  had  reference  only  to 
a  revocation  by  some  direct,  affirmative  act;  nor  by  an  act 
removing  the  disabilities  of  married  women  and  vesting 
them  with  the  complete  control  of  their  property,  as  if  un- 
married ;  nor  by  an  act  repealing  all  laws  imposing  civil 
disabilities  upon  the  wife  which  were  not  imposed  upon  the 
husband.10  A  statute  limiting  the  husband's  liability  for 
the  ante-nuptial  debts  and  torts  of  the  wife  to  the  property 
acquired  by  him  from  his  wife,  in  connection  with  a  statute 
making  the  wife  a  feme  sole  so  far  as  to  enable  her  to  carry 
on  business  on  her  own  account,  with  the  necessary  right  to 
contract  and  be  contracted  with,  to  sue  and  be  sued,  was 
held  not  to  repeal  the  common-law  rule  that  the  husband 
must  be  joined  in  a  suit  for  a  tort  of  the  wife.11 

A  statute  which  denied  to  a  married  female  the  right  to 
dispose  of  land  by  will  is  not  impliedly  repealed  by  a  sub- 
sequent statute  which  made  it  lawful  for  her  to  receive  by 
gift,  grant,  devise  or  bequest,  and  to  hold  to  her  sole  and 
separate  use  as  if  she  were  a  single  female,  real  and  personal 
property,  and  the  rents,  issues  and  profits  thereof,  and  as- 
suring the  same  against  her  husband's  disposal  and  his  debts. 
The  language  of  the  statute  gave  her  only  the  right  to  re- 
ceive and  hold  — a  mere  jus  tene?idi,  not  disponendi.™  The 
common  law  and  statutory  estate  by  the  curtes}''  is  held 
abolished  by  the  statutes  which  assure  to  married  women 
the  possession  and  control  of  their  separate  property  with 
the  rents,  issues  and  profits,  and  confer  power  of  disposition 
by  deed  or  will.13  A  statute  that  married  women  and  mi- 
nors may,  in  their  own  right,  make  and  draw  deposits,  and 
draw  dividends,  and  give  valid  receipts  therefor,  was  held 
not  to  be  repealed  by  a  later  provision  that  all  property  ac- 

10  Booth's  Will,  40  Ore.   154,  61  "Tongv.  Marvin,  15  Mich.  60;  Bil- 

Pac.  1131,  66  Pac.  710.  lings  v.  Baker,  23  Barb.  343.     And 

"  Taylor  v.  Pullen,  152  Mo.  434,  see  Hurt  v.  Cook,  151  Mo.  416,  52  S. 

53  S.  W.  1086.  W.  3'JO. 

12  Naylor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  L.  287. 


Ki  P]   \is    am>    EU  PEALING    At  is. 

quired  after  marriage  by  either  husband  or  wife,  with  cer- 
tain exceptions,  should  be  community  property.14 

-'('».*).  Same — Arts  relating  to  the  limitation  of  ac- 
tions.—  Three  Buocessive  acts  of  limitation  were  passed; 
each  provided  a  bar  to  an  action  of  assumpsit  if  not  com- 
menced within  six  years  alter  tho  cause  of  action  accrued. 
The  second  in  terms  repealed  the  first.  The  third  was  put 
in  force  without  any  repealing  clause.  Aright  of  action 
run  three  years  under  the  first,  and  three  years  under  the 
>nd,  and  the  action  was  brought  after  the  third  had  been 
enacted;  it  was  held  that  the  action  was  barred.  There 
was  no  repeal,  for  the  acts  were  not  inconsistent.15  An  act 
of  1713  provided  that  when  a  judgment  for  the  plaintiff 
was  reversed  on  error  or  when  judgment  Avas  given  against 
the  plaintiff  on  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment,  he  or  his  rep- 
resentatives might  commence  a  new  action  at  any  time 
within  a  year  from  such  reversal  or  arrest.  An  act  of  1895 
provided  that  an  action  for  wrongful  injury  to  the  person 
should  be  brought  within  two  years  from  the  injury,  and 
not  afterwards.  This  was  held  to  repeal  the  earlier  act  so 
far  as  such  actions  were  concerned.1'5  Such  a  statute  would 
repeal  a  prior  law  allowing  six  years  for  the  commencing 
of  such  action.17 

.  266.  Same  —  Miscellaneous  cases. —  A  road  law  which 
only  goes  into  effect  in  any  county  on  the  recommendation 
of  the  grand  jury  is  not  repealed  by  a  later  law  providing 
a  different  scheme,  and  which  only  goes  into  effect  on  adop- 
tion by  popular  vote.18  A  law  providing  how  warrants  on 
the  county  treasurer  should  be  drawn,  and  providing  that 
no  money  should  be  paid  out  except  upon  warrants  so  drawn, 
was  held  not  to  be  repealed  by  a  later  law,  allowing  jurors 

HRowe  v.   Hibernia  Sav.  &  L.  Co.,  190  Pa.  St.  3o8,  42  At!.  953.    To 

134  i.ii.  403,  86  Pac.  569.  same  effect,  Voight  v.  Gulf,  etc.  Ry. 

l»McLaughlin  v.  Hoover,  1  Ore.  31.  Co.,  94  Tex.  357,  60  S.  W.  65& 

l6Sp«                       »04  Pa.  St.  504,  Hnnis  v.  Ragsdale,  116  Ga. 

54  At:  245,  42  S.  E.  492. 
17  Rodenbattgh  v.  Phila.  Traction 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  509 

attending  an  inquest  SI  a  day,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  county 
treasury  on  the  certificate  of  the  coroner,  as  both  acts  could 
apply.19  The  repealing  effect  of  an  act  cannot  be  enlarged 
by  its  title.20  A  provision  requiring  the  supreme  court  re- 
porter to  have  all  decisions  in  the  hands  of  the  publisher,  if 
enough  for  a  volume,  within  twenty  days  after  their  rendi- 
tion, on  penalty  of  removal  from  office,  was  held  to  be  re- 
pealed by  implication  by  a  later  law  requiring  all  decisions 
to  be  reported,  as  compliance  with  both  laws  would  be  im- 
possible.21 A  primary  election  law  was  held  to  repeal  the 
provisions  of  a  general  election  law  relating  to  nominations 
by  party  conventions.22  An  act  to  provide  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  mutual  insurance  companies  was  held  not  to  repeal 
so  much  of  a  prior  act  for  the  organization  of  insurance 
companies  of  various  kinds  as  related  to  mutual  compa- 
nies.23 An  act  provided  that  every  franchise  or  privilege  to 
construct  or  operate  a  railroad  upon  any  public  street  or 
highway  should  be  granted  to  the  highest  bidder.  An  act 
going  into  effect  one  day  later  authorized  county  boards  to 
grant  franchises  for  all  lawful  purposes  "upon  such  terms, 
conditions  and  restrictions  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  nec- 
essary and  proper."  This  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  for- 
mer act  as  to  railroad  franchises  granted  by  county  boards, 
as  there  was  room  for  both  acts  to  operate.24  An  act  granted 
to  the  defendant  company  certain  franchises  in  New  York 
City  and  required  it  to  pay  certain  license  fees  to  the  city. 
A  later  act  granted  additional  privileges  and  provided  that, 
if  the  same  were  accepted,  it  should  pay  a  percentage  on  net 
receipts  to  the  city.  There  was  held  to  be  no  repeal,  the 
payment  provided  for  in  the  later  statute  not  being  exclu- 
sive.25   The  grant  to  a  telephone  company  to  use  the  streets 

19  Kern  v.  People,  44  111.  App.  181.        »  State  v.  Moore,  48  Neb.  870,  67 

20  The  New  York,  108  Fed.  102, 47    N.  W.  87G. 

C.  C.  A.  232.  24  Thompson  v.  Board  of  Super- 

21  State  Reporter's  Case,  150  Pa.     visors,  111  Cal.  553,  44  Pac.  230. 

St.  550,  24  Atl.  908.  2»New  York  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc  R. 

--'  State  v.  Jensen,  86  Minn.  19,  89    R.  Co.,  47  Hun,  199. 
N.  W.  1126. 


."•  1   I  Kl  PEALS    AM>    REPEALING    A0T8. 

is  not  repealed  by  a  later  -runt  to  an  eleotrio  street  railway 
company  to  use  the  same  Btreets.88  In  1884  the  Legislature 
of  Kentucky  passed  an  aot  to  encourage  railroad  building, 
which  provided  that  all  railroads  thereafter  built  should  bo 
exempt  from  all  taxation  for  five  years  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  road.  In  issi;  a  general  revenue  act  was  passed 
which  provided  lor  the  taxation  of  all  property  not  expressly 
exempted  by  the  act  and  which  repealed  all  acts,  general 
and  special,  and  parts  of  acts,  inconsistent  therewith.  It  was 
held  to  repeal  the  earlier  act  by  implication  as  to  roads  there- 

iommenced.  InlSSS  thelawsof  the  state  were  compiled 
and  both  the  above  acts  were  included  therein  and  re-enacted. 
This  was  held  not  to  change  the  result.27  An  act  gave  power 
to  the  railroad  and  warehouse  commissioners  to  revoke 
warehouse  licenses,  but  no  provision  was  then  in  existence 
for  licensing  warehouses.  A  later  act  authorized  the  cir- 
cuit court  to  grant  and  revoke  licenses  to  certain  ware- 
houses. The  former  act  was  held  to  be  repealed  or  sus- 
pended as  to  such  licenses.28     Some  additional  cases  are  re- 

1  to  in  the  margin.21 
7.  Repeals  by  implication  avoided  if  possible. —  If 
two  statutes  can  b  s  read   together  without  contradiction,  or 
repugnancy,  or  absurdity,  or  unreasonableness,  they  should 

26  Cumberland  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.  v.  Wash.  450,   53  Pac.   715;   Stetson- 
United  Electric  Ry.  Co.,  93  Tenn.  Post  Mill  Co.  v.  Brown,  21  Wash.  619. 
S.  W.  104,  27  L,  R.  A.  230.  59  Pac.  507, 75  Am. St.  Rep.  862.   Held 
27 Commonwealth     v.     Railroad  no  repeal:  Hewitt  v.  People,  87  III 
Companies.  95  Ky.  GO,  23  S.  W.  80s.  App.  3G7 ;  S.  C. affirmed,  186 I1L336, 57 
28Cantrell  v.   Seaverns,    168   I1L  N.  E.  1077;  Jar\  is  v.  Bradford,  88  111. 
165,  \S  N.  E.  186.  App.  685;  Chicago  v.  Hanseddy,  102 
id    repeal    by  implication:  I1L  App.  1;  Negrotts  v.  Monett,  49 
Edwards  v.  D.  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.App.28G;  WalcottTp.  v.Skauge, 
Colo.    59,   21   Pac.    1011;   Smith  v.  6  N.  D.  382,  71  N.  W.  544:  North- 
-o,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  86  Iowa,  202,  western  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lewis 
53  N.    W.  138;  State  v.   Rogers,  22  &  Clark  County,  28  Mont.  484;  Rey- 
Ore,348,80Pao.74;8proulv.Stand-  nolds  v.   Board  of  Education,  66 
ard  Plate  Glass  Co.,  201  Pa  St.  103,  Kan.  672,  72  Pac  274;  Snowden  v. 
AtL   1003;  Nor  for  v.   Busby,  19  State,  69  Md.  203,  14  Atl.  52a 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  511 

be  read  together,  and  both  will  have  effect.30  It  is  not 
enough  to  justify  the  inference  of  repeal  that  the  later  law 
is  different;  it  must  be  contrary  to  the  prior  law.31  It  is 
not  sufficient  that  the  subsequent  statute  covers  some  or 
even  all  the  cases  provided  for  by  the  former,  for  it  may  be 
merely  affirmative,  accumulative  or  auxiliary;  there  must 
be  positive  repugnancy;  and  even  then  the  old  law  is  re- 
pealed by  implication  only  to  the  extent  of  the  repugnancy.32 
If,  by  fair  and  reasonable  interpretation,  acts  which  are 
seemingly  incompatible  or  contradictory  may  be  enforced 
and  made  to  operate  in  harmony  and  without  absurdity, 
both  will  be  upheld,  and  the  later  one  will  not  be  regarded 
as  repealing  the  others  by  construction  or  intendment.33  As 
laws  are  presumed  to  be  passed  with  deliberation  and  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  all  existing  ones  on  the  same  subject,  it 
is  but  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  legislature,  in  passing 
a  statute,  did  not  intend  to  interfere  with  or  abrogate  any 
former  law  relating  to  the  same  matter,  unless  the  repug- 
nancy between  the  two  is  irreconcilable.34     In  the  endeavor 

30  Regina  v.  Mews,  6  Q.  B.  Div.  47;  peal,  70  Pa.  St.  344;  Kansas  City  v. 
S.  C,  L.  R.  8  App.  Cas.  339,  revers-  Kimball,  60  Kan.  224,  56  Pac.  78; 
ing  the  ruling  below;  Smith  v.  Conley  v.  Commonwealth,  98  Ky. 
Speed,  50  Ala  276;  Enloe  v.  Reike,  125,32  S.  W.  2*5;  Albert  v.  Two- 
56  id.  500;  Wagner  v.  Stoll,  2  Rich,  hig,  35  Neb.  563,  53  N.  W.  582;  Co- 
(N.  S.)  539;  Robb  v.  Gurney,  id.  559.  Operative  S.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Fawick, 

31  Nixon  v.  Piffet,  16  La.  Ann.  11  S.  D.  589,  79  N.  W.  847;  Groff  v. 
379;  Kesler  v.  Smith,  66  N.  C.  154;  Miller,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  353; 
Landis  v.  Landis,  39  N.  «T.  L.  274.  Farwell    v.  Des  Moines  Brick    & 

»2  Wood  v.  United  States,  16  Pet.  Mfg.  Co.,  97  Iowa,  286,  66  N.  W.  176, 

342,  363, 10  L.  Ed.  987;  Coats  v.  Hill,  35  L.  R.  A.  63;  George  v.  Lillard, 

41  Ark.  149;  Connors  v.  Carp  River  106  Ky.  820,  51  S.  W.  793;  Gowen  v. 

Iron  Co.,  54  Mich.  168, 19  N.  W.  938;  Conlow,  51  Minn.  213,  53  N.  W.    65; 

People  v.  Supervisors,  67  N.  Y.  109,  State  v.  Smith,  35  Neb.  13,  52  N.  W. 

23  Am.  Rep.  94  700;  State  v.  Hay,  45  Neb.  321.  63 

33  Elizabethtown,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  N.  W.  821;  Williams  v.  McLendon, 

Elizabethtown,  12   Bush,  233;  Hig-  44  S.  C.  174,  21  S.  E.  616;  Appleton 

gins  v.  State,  64  Md.  419,  423,  1  Atl.  W.  W.  Co.   v.  Appleton,  116   Wis. 

876;  McCool  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  459,  303,  93  N.  W.  26a 

17  L.  Ed.  218;  Cass  v.Dillon,  2 Ohio  34jODb    v.   Meagher    County  20 

St.  607;  Howard  Association's  Ap-  Mont.  424,  51  Pac.  1034;   Ridgeway 


."•  I'J  Kl   PI     \1  -     AM>     Kl    IT  LLING      A.OT8. 

to  harm 01  ttutes  seemingly  incompatible,  to  avoid  re- 

peal by  implication,  a  oourt  will  reject  absurdity  as  not  cn- 
acted,  and  accept  with  favorable  consideration  what  is  rea- 
sonable and  convenient.  In  cases  of  doubt,  repeal  of  a  stat- 
ute or  of  the  common  Law  may  be  deemed  intended  in  favor 
of  convenience.88  An  argument  based  on  inconvenience 
is  forcible  in  law;98  no  less  so  is  one  to  avoid  what  is  unjust 
or  unreasonable.87  Like  considerations  of  what  is  conven- 
ient, just  or  reasonable,  when  they  can  be  invoked  against 
the  implication  of  repeal,  will  be  still  more  potent.  The 
act  being  silent  as  to  repeal  and  affirmative,  it  will  not  be 
held  to  abrogate  any  prior  law  which  can  reasonably  and 
justly  operate  without  antagonism."3  A  statute  which  does 
not  take  away  any  right,  or  impose  any  substantially  new 
duty,  but  regulates  with  additional  requirements  adutyini- 
I  by  a  previous  statute,  is  not  to  be  deemed  inconsist- 
ent with  the  previous  act.39  Two  statutes  are  not  repug- 
nant to  each  other  unless  they  relate  to  the  same  subject 
and  are  passed  for  the  same  purpose.40  "It is  a  reasonable 
presumption  that  all  laws  are  passed  with  a  knowledge  of 
those  already  existing,  and  that  the  legislature  does  not  in- 
tend to  repeal  a  statute  without  so  declaring."41 

v.  f'.allatin  County,  181  111.  521,53  Commercial  Bank  v.  Chambers.  8 

N.  K.  1 16;    Bowen  v.  Lease,  5  Hill,  S.  &  M.  9,  46. 

221  39Staats  v.  Hudson   River  RE, 

Steward   v.  Greaves,  10   M.  &  Co.,  4  Abb.  App.  Dec.  287. 

W.  711;    Davison  v.  Farmer,  G   Ex.  40  People   v.  Bartleson,  14  Utah, 

242,2               •  258,  47  Pac 

Litt  07a.  "Booth's  Will,  40  Ore.  154.  61  Pac. 

3"  Rex  v.  Whiteley,  3E&N.  143;  1135,  G6  Pac.  710.  In  Speer  v.  Boggs, 

Johnson  v.  Bush,  3  Barb.  Ch.  207,  204  Pa.   St.   504,   the  court    says: 

See    Harris  v.  Jenns,  9  C.  B.  "When  an  apparent  conflict  is  pre- 

152.  sented   by   dillerent  parts  of  the 

|  248;  McNeely  v.Wood-  same    act,    it    is     the     duty    of 

rulT.  13  N.  J.  L.  352,  356,  357:  Ever-  courts  to  reconcile  them,  if  possi- 

.  Matter  of,  47  N.  Y.  216,  221;  ble,  by  such  construction  as  will 

Chamberlain  v.  Chamberlain,  43  id.  give  effect  to  all  the   parts.      The 

State  v.    Stinson,    17   Me.  presumption  is  that  the  legislature 

154;  Smith  v.  People,  47  N.  Y.  330;  did  not  intend  any  inconsistency. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  513 

§  268  (153).  Acts  passed  at  same  session  —  Provisions  in 
same  act. —  The  presumption  is  stronger  against  implied 
repeals  where  provisions  supposed  to  conflict  are  in  the  same 
act  or  were  passed  at  nearly  the  same  time.  In  the  first 
case  it  would  manifestly  be  an  inadvertence,  for  it  is  not 
supposable  that  the  legislature  would  deliberately  pass  an 
act  with  conflicting  intentions;  in  the  other  case  the  pre- 
sumption rests  on  the  improbability  of  a  change  of  intention, 
or,  if  such  change  had  occurred,  that  the  legislature  would 
express  it  in  a  different  act  without  an  express  repeal  of  the 
first.42  "  Statutes  enacted  at  the  same  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture should  receive  a  construction,  if  possible,  which  will 
give  effect  to  each.  They  are  within  the  reason  of  the  rule 
governing  the  construction  of  statutes  in  jpari  materia. 
Each  is  supposed  to  speak  the  mind  of  the  same  legislature, 
and  the  words  used  in  each  should  be  qualified  and  restricted, 
if  necessary,  in  their  construction  and  effect,  so  as  to  give 
validity  and  effect  to  every  other  act  passed  at  the  same 
session."43  The  presumption  is  that  different  acts  passed  at 
the  same  session  of  the  legislature  are  imbued  by  the  same 
spirit  and  actuated  by  the  same  policy,  and  that  one  was 
not  intended  to  repeal  or  destroy  another,  unless  so  ex- 
pressed.44    Where  two  acts  are  passed  or  go  into  effect  on 

But  when  there  is  a  conflict  be-  v.  Brittenum,  56  Miss.  232;  State 
tween  a  prior  and  a  subsequent  act,  ex  rel.  Kellogg  v.  Treasurer,  41  Mo. 
the  presumption  is  that  the  latter  16;  State  v.  Clark,  54  id.  216;  Naz- 
repeals  the  former.  The  courts  areth  L.  B.  I.  v.  Commonwealth,  14 
are  not  bound,  nor  even  authorized,  B.  Mon.  266;  State  v.  Rackley,  2 
to  seek  a  construction  that  will  Blackf.  249;  Smith  v.  People,  47  N. 
reconcile  them,  further  than  to  in-  Y.  330;  Dawson  v.  Horan,  51  Barb, 
quire  if  the  conflict  is  real  and  not  459;  Sanders  v.  State,  77  Ind.  227; 
merely  apparent.  If  it  is  real,  the  Beals  v.  Hale,  4  How.  37;  Super- 
result  is  the  repeal  of  the  prior  visors  v.  Board  of  Commissioners, 
act."    p.  508.  12  Minn.  403. 

«  Houston,  etc.  R,  R.  Co.  v.  Ford,        "White  v.  Meadville,  177  Pa.  St. 

53  Tex.  364,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R,  013,  35  Atl.  695,  34  L.  R.  A.  567. 
Cas.   514;   Eckloff  v.  Dist.  of  Co-        4i  Hanks  v.  Yolo  County,  104  Cal. 

lumbia,  4  Mackay,  572;  Peyton  v.  258, 37  Pac.  900;  Hutchinson  v.  Self, 

Moseley,  3  T.  B.  Mon.  77;  Gibbons  153  111.  512,  39  N.  E.  27;  State  v. 
33 


514  REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 

the  Bame  day  it  is  Btrong  evidenoe  that  they  were  intended 
to  stand  together."  So  where  the  later  Law  was  the  first  to 
be  introduced."    An  amendment  of  a  law  shows  that  the 

ature  did  not  intend  to  repeal  it  by  a  prior  law.47    At 

sion  of  the  legislature  two  acts  wore  passed 

relative  to  the  place  where   actions  against  corporations 

might  be  brought.     The  act  first  passed  provided  that  such 

DS  might  be  brought  in  any  county  where  the  cause  of 
action  or  a  part  thereof  accrued,  or  in  any  county  where 
the  corporation  had  an  agency  or  representative  or  in  which 
was  its  principal  office.     The  second  act  gave  a  right  in 

-  to  bring  an  action  in  any  county  in  which  the  cause 
of  action  or  a  part  thereof  arose  —  it  contained  no  repealing 
clause.     It  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  former.48 

The  different  sections  or  provisions  of  the  same  statute  or 
code  should  be  so  construed  as  to  harmonize  and  give  effect 
to  each,49  but,  if  there  is  an  irreconcilable  conflict,  the  later 
in  position  prevails.50     But  where  an  act  divided  the  terri- 

of  Colorado  into  seventeen  counties  and  defined  the 
boundaries  of  each  in  separate  sections,  and  there  was  a 
conflict  in  the  descriptions,  it  was  held  that  the  descriptions 

Archibald,  43  Minn.  328,  45  IT.  W.  46  Lien  v.  County  Com'rs,  80  Minn. 

llawes  v.  Fliegler,  87  Minn.  58,  82  N.  W.  1094. 

319,e2N.W.  223;  State  v.  Stratton,  «  People  v.  Butler  St.  Foundry 

to.  423,  38  S.  W.  83;  State  v.  &  Iron  Co.,  201  111.  23G,  66  N.  E.  349. 

Rotwitt,  17  Mont.  41,  41  Pac.  1004;  <8  Houston,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ford, 

Houston  &  Tex.  Cent.  Ry.   Co.  v.  53  Tex.  364. 

95  Tex.  507,  62  S.  W.  114;  «Groff  v.  Miller,  20  App.  Cas.  (D. 

Matter  of  Gannett,  11  Utah,  283, 39  C.)  353:  Smith  v.  School  Com'rs,  81 

196;  Town  School  District  v.  Md.  513,  32  Atl.  193;  Westport  v. 

■    District,  72  Vt.  451,  48  Atl.  Jackson,  69  Mo.  App.  148;  Cincin- 

Im    re    Wilbur's    Estate,    14  nati  v.  Connor,  55  Ohio  St.  82,44 

...  44  Pac.  202;  Walser  v.  N.  E.  582;  Bull  v.  Kirk,  37  S.  C.  395, 

Jordan,  124  N.  C.  683,  33  S.  E.  139.  16  S.  E.  151. 

omroonwealtb     v.    Huntley,  so  Ex  parte  Thomas,  113  Ala.  1,  21 

156  Mass.  236,  SON.  EL  11*7, 15  L.  R.  So.    309;    Hand   v.   Stapleton,   135 

I;  Solomon  v.  Denver,  12  Colo.  Ala.   156.  33  So.  689;  Van  Horn  v. 

App.  179,  55  1'ac.  199:  Territory  v.  State,  46  Neb.  62.   64  N.  W.  365; 

Wingfleld,  2  Ariz.  305,  15  Pac.  139.  Omaha  Real  Est  &  T.  Co.  v.  Krags- 

covv,  47  Neb.  592,  66  N.  W.  658. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  515 

were  in  the  nature  of  grants  and  that  the  earlier  sections 
were  to  be  first  satisfied.51  Where  a  statute  expresses  first 
a  general  intent,  and  afterwards  an  inconsistent  particular 
intent,  the  latter  will  be  taken  as  an  exception  from  the 
former  and  both  will  stand.52 

§269(154).  Repeal  by  revision. —  Revision  of  statutes 
implies  a  re-examination  of  them.  The  word  is  applied  to  a 
restatement  of  the  law  in  a  corrected  or  improved  form. 
The  restatement  may  be  with  or  Avithout  material  change. 
A  revision  is  intended  to  take  the  place  of  the  law  as  pre- 
viously formulated.  By  adopting  it  the  legislature  say  the 
same  thing,  in  effect,  as  when  a  particular  section  is  amended 
by  the  words  "so  as  to  read  as  follows."  The  revision  is  a 
substitute;  it  displaces  and  repeals  the  former  law  as  it 
stood  relating  to  the  subjects  within  its  purview.  What- 
ever of  the  old  law  is  restated  in  the  revision  is  continued 
in  operation  as  it  may  operate  in  the  connection  in  which 
it  is  re-enacted. 

In  Bartlet  v.  King,53  Dewey,  J.,  said :  "  A  subsequent  stat- 
ute revising  the  whole  subject-matter  of  a  former  one,  and 
evidently  intended  as  a  substitute  for  it,  although  it  con- 
tains no  express  words  to  that  effect,  must  on  principles  of 
law,  as  well  as  in  reason  and  common  sense,  operate  to  re- 
peal the  former." 5i 

Though  a  subsequent  statute  be  not  repugnant  in  all  its 
provisions  to  a  former,  yet  if  it  was  clearly  intended  to  pre- 
scribe the  only  rule  which  should  govern,  it  repeals  the  for- 

81  Link  v.  Jones.  15  Colo.  App.  53 12  Mass.  545. 

281,  62  Pac.  339.  84  Rogers  v.  Watrous,  8  Tex.  62, 63 

52Stockett  v.  Bird,  18  Md.  484;  Am.  Dec.  100;  King  v.  Cornell,  106 

De  Winton  v.  Mayor,  26  Beav.  533;  U.  S.  395,  1  S.  C.  Rep.  312,  27  L.  Ed. 

Dahnke  v.  People,  168  111.  102, 48  N.  60;  Excelsior  Petroleum  Co.  v.  Em- 

E.  137,  39  L.  R.  A.  197;  Ex  parte  bury,  67  Barb.  261;  Ellis  v.  Paige,  1 

Joffee.  46  Mo.  App.  :'f>0 ;  Rodgers  v.  Pick.  45;  Berkshire  v.  Miss.  etc.  Ry. 

United  States,  185  U.  S.  83,  22  S.  C.  Co.,  28  Mo.  App.  225;  Lyon  v.  Smith, 

Rep.  582,  46  L  Ed.  816:  In  re  Rou.se,  11  Barb.  124;  Smith  v.  Nobles  Co.,  37 

Hazard  &  Co.,  91  Fed.  96,  :j:i  C.  C.  Minn.  535,  35  N.  W.  383. 
A.  356. 


516 


i;i  PE  \\  S    AM'    i;i  i'l    \i.l.\«;    A.   rS. 


mer  statute."  Without  express  words  of  repeal  a  previous 
statute  will  be  held  to  be  modified  by  a  subsequent  one,  if 
the  latter  was  plainly  intended  to  cover  the  subjeot  em- 
braced by  both,  and  to  prescribe  the  only  rules  in  respect 
to  that  subject  that  are  to  govern.88  Where  a  provision  is 
amended  by  the  form,  "to  read  as  follows/1  the  intention  is 
manifest  to  make  the  provision  following  a  substitute  for 

old  provision  and  to  operate  exclusively  in  its  place.-" 
a  revision  import  that  it  shall  displace  the  last  previ- 
ous form;  that  it  is  evidently  intended  as  a  substitute  for 
it;  that  it  is  intended  to  prescribe  the  only  rule  to  govern? 
In  other  words,  will  a  revision  repeal  by  implication  previ- 

tatutes  on  the  same  subject,  though  there  be  no  repug- 


era  v.  Watrous,  8  Tex.  G2, 

63  Am.  Dec.  100;  Industrial  School 

Di  strict  v.  Whitehead,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 

-  Iryan  v.  Sundberg,  5 Tex  418; 

Mulligan  v.  Cavanagh,  46  N.  J.  L. 

19;    Jl  unlock   v.   Memphis,  20 

WalL  617,  22  L.  Ed.  429;  State  v. 

Stoll.  1?  Wall.  425,  21  L.    Ed.  650; 

United  States  v.  Tynen,  11  WalL 

JO  L.  Ed.  153;    Board  of  Com- 

ers  v.    Potts,    10   lnd.  280; 

v.  Wilson,  48  N.  H.  419,  82 

Am.  Dec.  163;  Water  Works  Co.  v. 

Burkhart,    41    lnd.    364;    Farr  v. 

Brackett,    30    Vt.    344;    Tracy  v. 

Turtly,   134  U.  S.  20G,  10  S.  C.  Rep. 

527,  33  I-  Ed.  879;  Giddingsv.  Cox, 

31  Vt.  607;  State  v.  Kelley,  •  1  N.J. 

]_  75;  Pingree  v.  Snell,  42  Ma  53; 

Fayette  County  v.  Faires,  44  Tex. 

:  imento  v.  Bird,    15  CaL 

294;  State  v.  Conkling,  19  Cal.501; 

ter   ^  Limerick  P.   R   Co.  v. 

Allen,    1G   Barb.     15;    Bracken  v. 

Smith,  89  N.  J.  Eq.   169;  Andrews 

v.    People,  75  111.    605;    Daviess  v. 

Fairbairn,  8   How.    636,  11  L.  Ed. 

Bed  Book  v.  Henry,  luG  U.  S. 


596,  1  S.  C.  Pen.  434,  27  T,  Ed  251; 
People  v.  Brooklyn.  G9  N.  Y.  605; 
Cook  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  United 
States.  107  U.  S.  445,  2  S.  C.  Rep. 
445.  27  L.  Ed.  537;  Dillon  v.  Bick- 
nell,  116  CaL  111,  47  Pao.  937; 
Callam  v.  District  of  Columbia,  16 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  271;  Lambkin  v. 
Pike.  115  Ga.  827.  42  S.  E.  213,  90 
Am.  St.  Rep.  153;  Monroe  County 
v.  McDanieL  68  Miss.  203,  8  So.  645; 
State  v.  Order  of  Elks,  69  Miss.  895, 
13  So.  255;  State  Revenue  A^ent  v. 
Hill,  70  Miss.  106,  11  So.  789;  School 
District  v.  Eckert,  84  Miss.  417,  87 
N.  W.  1019;  State  v.  Camden,  58 
N.  J.  K  515,  33  Atl.  840;  Camden  v. 
Varney,  63  N.  J.  L.  325,  43  Atl.  889. 

sb  Tracy  v.  Tuffly,  184  U.  S.  200, 
10  S.  C.  Rep.  527,  33  L.  Ed.  879. 

57  United  States  v.  Barr,  4  Sawy. 
254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,527;  United 
States  v.  Tynen,  11  WalL  95,  20  L. 
Ed.  153;  Knox  v.  Baldwin,  SON.  Y. 
G10;  Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  31  Wis. 
127;  State  v.  Ingersoll,  17  id.  631; 
State  v.  Beswick,  13  R  L  211;  uuh, 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


517 


nance  ?  The  authorities  seem  to  answer  emphatically,  Yes. 
The  reasonable  inference  from  a  revision  is  that  the  legis- 
lature cannot  be  supposed  to  have  intended  that  there 
should  he  two  distinct  enactments  embracing  the  same  sub- 
ject-matter in  force  at  the  same  time,  and  that  the  new 
statute,  being  the  most  recent  expression  of  the  legislative 
will,  must  be  deemed  a  substitute  for  previous  enactments, 
and  the  only  one  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  the 
force  of  law.58    In  case  of  an  act  "to  revise,  amend  and 


58  Smith  v.  State,  1  Stew.  506; 
State  v.  Whitworth,  8  Port.  434; 
Wilkinson  v.  Ketler,  59  Ala.  306; 
Ogbourne  v.  Oghourne's  Aclin'r,  60 
Ala.  616;  Hatchett  v.  Billingslea, 
65  Ala.  16;  Carmichael  v.  Hays,  66 
Ala.  543;  Scott  v.  Simons,  70  Ala. 
352;  Sawyers  v.  Baker,  72  Ala.  49; 
Werborn  v.  Austin,  77  Ala.  381; 
Wood  v.  State,  47  Ark.  488,  1  S.  W. 
709:  Wilson  v.  Massie,  70  Ark.  25, 
65  S.  W.  942;  In  man  v.  State,  65 
Ark.  508,  47  S.  W.  558;  Hanley  v. 
Sixteen  Horses,  97  Cal.  182,  32  Pac. 
10;  Huffman  v.  Hall,  102  Cal.  26,36 
Pac.  417;  San  Diego  County  v. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  108  Cal.  46, 
40  Pac.  1052;  Dillon  v.  Bicknell,  116 
Cal.  Ill,  47  Pac.  937;  Mack  v.  Jas- 
tro,  126  Cal.  130,  58  Pac.  372;  Peo- 
ple v.  Ames,  27  Colo.  126,  60  Pac. 
346;  Husbands  v.  Talley,  3  Penn. 
(Dei.)  88, 47  Atl.1009;  Fulton  v.  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  2  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  431;  Callan  v.  District  of 
Columbia,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  271; 
United  States  v.  MacFarland,  18 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  120;  Jernigan  v. 
Hoklen,  34  Fla.  530,  16  So.  413;  Cul- 
ver v.  Third  Nat.  Bank,  64  111.  528; 
People  v.  Board  of  Education.  166 
111.  388,  46  N.  E.  1099;  Canal  Cora'rs 
v.  East  Peoria,  179  111.  214,  53  N.  E. 
633;  People  v.  Thornton,  186  111.  162, 


57  N.  E.  841;  State  Board  of  Health 
v.  Ross,  191  III.  87,  60  N.  E.  811; 
Washington  Heights  v.  Moffatt,  57 
111.  App.  269;  State  Board  of  Health 
v.  Ross,  91  111.  App.  281;  Keep  v. 
Crawford,  92  111.  App.  587;  Lawson 
v.  De  Bolt,  78  Ind.  563:  Thomas  v. 
Butler,  139  Ind.  245,  38  N.  E.  808; 
Warford  v.  Sullivan,  147  Ind.  14, 
46  N.  E.  27;  State  v.  Studt,  31  Kan. 

245,  1  Pac.  635;  State  v.  Country- 
man, 57  Kan.  815,  48  Pac.  137;  Gor- 
ham  v.  Luckett,  6  B.  Mon.  154; 
Broaddus  v.  Broaddus,  10  Bush,  299; 
Commonwealth  v.  Mason,  82  Ky. 
256;  Commonwealth  v.  Watts.  84 
Ky.  537,  2  S.  W.  123;  Smith  V.  Mat- 
tin  gly,  96  Ky.  228,  28  S.  W.  503; 
Buchanan  v.  Commonwealth,  95 
Ky.  331,  25  S.  W.  265;  Patterson  v. 
Commonwealth,  09  Ky.  610,  5  S.  W. 
765;  Long  v.  Stone,  19  Ky.  L.  R. 

246,  39  S.  W.  836;  Barnard  v.  Gall, 
43  La.  Ann.  959,  10  So.  5;  Towle  v. 
Marrett,  3  Greenlf.  22,  14  Am.,Dec. 
206;  Knight  v.  Aroostook  R  R..Go.. 
67  Me.  291;  Dugan  v.  Gittin^s,  8 
Gill,  138;  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Groslicn,  30 
Md.  430;  Montel  v.  Consolidated 
Coal  Co.,  39  Md.  L64;  Gooctenow  v. 
Buttrick,7  Mass.  140;  Ellis  v.  Paige, 
1  Pick.  43;  Ashby,  Appellant,  4 
Pick.  21,  23;  Commonwealth  v. 
Cooley.10  Pick.  87;  Commonwealth 


518 


Kl  iv  \i  s    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


ilidate  the  laws  for  the  incorporation  of  ecclesiastical 
bodies,"  it  was  held  that  the  use  of  the  word  "consolidate" 
indicated  very  clearly  that  the  purpose  of  the  legislature 


v.  Kelliher,  12  All,  n.  480;  Pratt  ▼. 

;  Commissioner,  L 89  Mass.  559, 

.   N.  i  .  675;  Shannon  v.  People,  5 

Mich.  71,  85;   Attorney-General  v. 

Parsell,  100  Mich.  170.  As  N.  W.  839; 
( rraham  v.  Muskegon  County  Clerk, 
1  Ki  Mich,  571.  7-1  N.  W.  729;  Attor- 

leneral  v.  Commissioner  of 
Railroads,  117  Mich.  477,  76  N.  W. 
69;    Rundlett  v.  St.  Paul.  G4  Minn. 

6  .X.  W.  967:  School  District 
v.  Eokert,  84   Minn.  417,  87  N.  W. 
101'.':  Swann  v.  Buck,  -10  Miss. 
Myers  v.  Marshal)  Co., 55  Miss.  344; 
Gibbons  v.  Brittenum,  56  Misa  232; 

v.  ( (rderof  Elks,  69  Miss.  895, 
.1,'    Rev.    Agent  v. 
Hill.  :  789;  Smith 

v.  State,  M  Mo.  147;  state  v.  Wood- 
son, 128  Mo.  497,  31  S.  W.  105;  Proc- 
ter v.  Cascade  County,  20  Mont. 
50  Pac.  1017:  State  v.  Bemis, 
•1.-)  Neb.  724,  01  X.  W.  348;  Thorpe 

hooling,  7  Nev.  13;  State  v. 
Rogers.  10  Nev.  250.  21   Am.  Rep. 

Leighton  v.  Walker,  9  N.  H. 
59;  Mersereau  v.  Mersereau  County, 

.1.  Eq.  382,  36  At  I.  682;  Roche 
v.  J.  rsey  (  ity.  40  X.  J.  L.  257;  State 
v.  Trenton,  5';  X.  J.  L  469,  e9  Atl. 
v.  <  A  i mien,  58  N.  J.  L. 
515,33  Atl.  846;  Camden  v.  Varney, 
.  .1.  1..  825,  43  Atl.  889;  Tafoya 
v.  Garcia.  1  X.  M.  4so;  Ilccknmn  v. 
Pinkney.  81  X.  Y.  211;  Matter  of 
New  York    Institution,   121    N.  Y. 

I  X.  K.  378;  People  v.  Carr,86 
Hun,  188;  Eagan  v.  Koehester,  68 
Hun  .  V.  a  955;  People  v. 

•,.  7«  Hun.  B7,  -".»  X.  Y.  s.  615; 
Main  v.  B.  &  O.  R,  R  Co.,  73  A  pp. 


Div.  265,  7G  N.  Y.  838;  People  v. 
Police  Com'rs,  79  App.  Div.  82,  70 
N.  Y.  S.  710;  People  v.  Cleary,  13 
Misc.  546,  35  N.  Y.  S.  588;  State  v. 
Seaborn,  4  Dev.  305;  Little  v.  Cogs- 
well, 20  Ore.  845,  25  I  'aa  7"J7;  Strick- 
land v.  Geide,  31  Ore.  873,  49  Pac. 
982;  Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Riggen. 
31  Ore.  330,  48  Pac.  476;  Ex  parte 
Ferdon,  85  Ore.  171,  57  Pac.  37G; 
Reed  v.  Dunbar,  41  Ore.  509,  69  Pac. 
451;  Commonwealth  v.  Crowley,  1 
Ashm.  179;  Fenner  v.  Luzerne 
County,  167  Pa.  St.  632,  81  All.  862: 
Matter  of  Emsworth  Borough,  5 
Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  29;  Davis  v.  Carew,  1 
Rich.  275;  Laurens  v.  Crawford.  55 
S.  C.  594,  33  S.  E.  728;  State  v.  Wel- 
bers.  11  S.  D.  86,  75  N.  W.  820; 
Smith  v.  Hickman's  Heirs,  Cooke 
(Tenn.),  320;  Furman  v.  Nichol,  3 
Cold.  439;  Mayor  v.  Dearmon,  2 
Sneed,  120;  Terrell  v.  State,  86 
Tenn.  523,  8  S.  W.  212;  State  v. 
Butcher,  93  Tenn.  679,  28  S.  W.  296; 
Puckett  v.  Springfield,  97  Tenn. 
264,  37  S.  W.  2;  Maxwell  v.  Stuart, 
99  Tenn.  409.  42  S.  W.  34;  Bryan  v. 
Sundberg,  5  Tex.  418;  Stirman  v. 
State.  21  Tex.  734;  Anderson  v. 
Levyson,  1  Tex.  App.  520;  Etter  v. 
Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  2  Tex.  App.  48; 
Harold  v.  State,  16  Tex.  App.  157; 
Stebbins  v.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  32; 
Dickinson  v.  State,  38  Tex.  Crim. 
App.  472, 41  S.  W.  759,  43  S.  W.  520; 
Bartch  v.  Meloy,  8  Utah,  424,  32 
Pac.  694;  Boston  Nat.  Bank  v.  At- 
kins. 72  Vt.  33,  47  Atl.  176;  State 
v.  Carron  Hill  Coal  Co.,  4  Wash. 
422,  30  Pac.  728;  Baer  v.  Choir,  7 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


519 


was  to  collect  in  one  act  all  the  law  relating  to  the  subject.59 
In  all  cases  of  repeal  by  revision  the  absence  of  express 
words  of  repeal  is  unimportant.60 

§  270.  As  a  general  rule  whatever  is  excluded  from 
the  revised  act  is  repealed. — The  purport  of  the  numerous 
cases  cited  in  the  last  section  is  that  where  a  statute  is  re- 
vised, or  a  series  of  acts  on  the  same  subject  are  revised  and 
consolidated  into  one,  all  parts  and  provisions  of  the  former 
act  or  acts,  that  are  omitted  from  the  revised  act,  are  re- 
pealed.61    "  Even  although  the  provisions  of  unrepealed  leg- 


Wash.  631,  32  Pac.  776,  36  Pac.  286; 
McMaster  v.  Advance  Thresher  Co., 
10  Wash.  147,  38  Pac.  760;  Cochran 
v.  King  County,  12  Wash.  518,  41 
Pac.  922;  Leavitt  v.  Chambers,  16 
Wash.  353,  47  Pac.  755;  Burlander 
v.  Railway  Co.,  26  Wis.  76;  Sim- 
mons v.  Bradley,  27  Wis.  689;  Gil- 
bank  v.  Stephenson,  30  Wis.  157; 
Moore  v.  Railroad  Co.,  34  Wis.  173; 
Oleson  v.  Railway  Co.,  36  Wis.  383; 
State  v.  Campbell,  44  Wis.  529; 
Schneider  v.  Staples,  66  Wis.  167, 
28  N.  W.  145;  Smith  v.  Eau  Claire,  78 
Wis.  457, 47  N.  W.  830;  Dane  County 
v.  Reindahl.  104  Wis.  302,  80  N.  W. 
438;  United  States  v.  Claflin,  97 
U.  S.  546,  24  L.  Ed.  1082, 1085;  Cook 
County  Nat.  Bank  v.  United  States, 
107  U.  S.  445,  2  S.  C.  Rep.  561,  27 
L.  Ed.  537;  Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U. 
S.  529,  2  S.  C.  Rep.  704,  27  L.  Ed. 
424;  District  of  Columbia  v.  Hut- 
ton,  143  U.  S.  18,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  369, 
36  L.  Ed.  60;  United  States  v.  Ran- 
lett,  172  U.  S.  133,  19  S.  C.  Rep.  114, 
43  L.  Ed.  293:  The  Paqueta  Habana, 
175  U.  S.  677,  20  S.  C.  Rep.  290,  44 
L.  Ed.  320;  United  States  v.  War- 
wick, 51  Fed.  280;  Kent  v.  United 
States,  68  Fed.  536;  Kent  v.  United 
States,  73  Fed.  680,  19  C.  C.  A.  642, 


38  U.  S.  App.  554;  Rogers  v.  Nash- 
ville,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  91  Fed.  299,  33 
C.  C.  A.  517;  United  States  v. 
Cheese  man,  3  Sawyer,  424,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,790. 

59  Graham  v.  Muskegon  County 
Clerk,  110  Mich.  571,  573,  74  N.  W. 
729. 

60  People  v.  Board  of  Education, 
166  111.  388,  46  N.  E.  1099;  Canal 
Commissioners  v.  East  Peoria,  179 
111.  214,  53  N.  E.  633;  State  v. 
Countryman,  57  Kan.  815,  48  Pac. 
137. 

61  The  following  are  especially  in 
point:  Husbands  v.  Tally,  3  Penn. 
(Del.)  88,  47  Atl.  1009;  Jernigan  v. 
Holden,  34  Fla.  530,  16  So.  413; 
Washington  Heights  v.  Moffatt,  57 
111.  App.  269;  Buchanan  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 95  Ky.  334,  25  S.  W. 
265;  Smith  v.  Mattingly,  96  Ky.  228, 
28  S.  W.  503;  Patterson  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 99  Ky.  610,  5  S.  W.  765; 
Barnard  v.  Gall,  43  La.  Ann.  959, 
10  So.  5;  State  v.  Order  of  Elks,  69 
Miss.  895,  13  So.  255;  State  Revenue 
Agent  v.  Hill,  70  Miss.  106,  11  So. 
789;  Mairs  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.,  73 
App.  Div.  2(;.-),76  N.  Y.S.  838;  State 
v.  Welbers,  11  S.  D.  86.  75  N.  W. 
820;  Terrell  v.  State,  86  Tenn.  523, 


i:i  n:  \i  s    ami    REPE  LLING    acts. 

islation  may  not  be  inconsistent  with  tlioso  of  a  new  enact- 
ment, still  when  it  is  plain  that  it  is  the  legislative  intent 
to  embrace  the  whole  subject,  it  is  well  settled  that  what  is 
not  inoladed  in  the  later  statute  must  be  held  to  have  been 
discarded.'9 

A  revising  statute  embracing  antecedent  general  laws  on 
various  subjects  and  reducing  them  to  one  system  and  one 
text  repeals  all  prior  statutes  upon  the  same  subjects  not 
inoluded  in  the  body  of  the  revision  and  not  exempted  by 
an  express  clause.63  Where  one  act  is  trained  from  another, 
some  parts  taken  and  others  omitted;  orMvhere  there  are 
two  acts  on  the  same  subject,  and  a  later  embraces  all  the 
provisions  of  the  first  and  also  new  provisions,  the  later  act 
operates,  without  any  repealing  clause,  as  a  repeal  of  the 
■  But  the  object  of  the  old  and  the  new  acts  must  be 
the  same.65  The  fact  of  revision  raises  a  presumption  of  a 
complete  code,  or  a  complete  treatment  of  the  subjects  em- 
braced in  it.66 

271  (156).  The  important  question  in  these  cases  is 
whether  a  later  act  is  intended  by  the  legislature  to  be  a  re- 

8S.W.  212;  Puckett  v.  Springfield  ute  shall  prevail,  and  that  what- 

97  Tenn.    264,  37   S.  W.   2;    Dane  ever  is  excluded  is  discarded." 

County  v.  Reindahl,  104  Wis.  302,  63  state  v.  Judge,  37  La.  Ann.  578; 

80  N.  W.  Clay  Co.  Sup'rs  v.  Chickasaw  Co. 

62  Camden  v.  Varney,  63  N.  J.  L.  Sup'rs:  64   Miss.  534;    Stebbins   v. 

J9, 43  AtL  889  (Court  of  Errors  State,   22  Tex.  App.  32;  State  v. 

and  Appeals).   To  same  effect:  Dil-  Courtney,  73  Iowa,  619,  35  N.  W. 

Ion  v.  Bicknell,  116  Cal.  Ill,  47  Pac.  685. 

In    People  v.   Thornton,   186  «4  Ellis  v.  Paige,  1  Pick.  43;  United 

111.  162,  173,  57  N.  E.  841,  the  court  States  v.  Tynen,  11  Wall.  88,  20  L. 

re  the  legislature  frames  Ed.  153;  Mears  v.  Stewart,  31  Ark. 

a  new  statute  upon  a  certain  sub  17. 

Ltter,  and  the  legislative  in-  ,i5  United  States  v.  CI affin,  97 U.  S. 

n    appears    from   the    latter  546,  24  L.  Ed.  1082,  1085;  Matter  of 

Btatute    to    be    to   frame    a    new  Commissioners  of  Central  Park,  50 

scheme  in  relation  to  such  subject-  N.  Y.  493,  497. 

matter  and  make  a  revision  of  the  66  Broaddus  v.  Broaddus,  10  Bush, 

-ubject,  there  is  in  effect  a  299;  Commonwealth  v.   Mason,  82 

itive  declaration,  that  what-  Ky.   25.:;    Jernigan   v.   Jlolden,  34 

ever  is  embraced  in  the  new  stat-  Fla.  539,  16  So.  113. 


REPEALS   AND   REPEALING    ACTS.  521 

vision  of  the  law  relating  to  the  subjects  within  its  purview. 
It  cannot  be  so  intended  unless  it  is  a  complete  substitute 
for  the  previous  law  and  contains  the  only  rule  or  all  the 
legislation  which  is  intended  to  have  force  with  regard  to 
those  subjects.  An  act  which  professes  to  be  a  revision,  and 
has  such  scope  of  subject-matter  that  its  title  and  profession 
are  not  illusory,  should  obviously  so  operate.67  So  where 
there  are  two  statutes  on  the  same  subject,  passed  at  differ- 
ent dates,  and  it  is  plain  from  the  frame-work  and  substance 
of  the  last  that  it  was  intended  to  cover  the  whole  subject, 
and  to  be  a  complete  and  perfect  system  or  provision  in  it- 
self, the  last  must  be  held  to  be  a  legislative  declaration  that 
whatever  is  embraced  in  it  shall  prevail  and  whatever  is  ex- 
cluded is  discarded  and  repealed.68  Though  a  revision  oper- 
ates to  repeal  the  laws  revised  whether  repugnant  or  not, 
those  portions  that  are  re-enacted  are  continuations.69  The 
revision  is,  however,  a  re-enactment,  and  to  be  alone  con- 
sulted to  ascertain  the  law  when  its  meaning  is  plain;  but 
when  there  is  irreconcilable  conflict  of  one  part  with  another, 
the  part  last  enacted  in  the  original  form  will  govern.70  And 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  construe  language  used  in  the 
revision  which  leaves  a  substantial  doubt  of  its  meaning,  the 

67  United  States  v.  Bowen,  100  U.  Estate,  33  Pa.  St.  511 ;  Herron  v.  Car- 
S.  508,  25  L.  Ed.  631;  Arthur  v.  son,  26  W.  Va,  62;  Rhoads  v.  Hoer- 
Dodge,  101  U.  S.  34;  25  L.  Ed.  948;  nerstown  Building,  etc.  Ass'n,  82 
Myer  v.  Car  Co.,  102  U.  S.  1,  26  L.  Pa.  St.  180;  Cahall  v.  Citizens' 
Ed.  59;    United  States  v.  Lacher,  Mut.  B.  Ass'n,  61  Ala.  232. 

134  U.  S.  624,  10  S.  C.  Rep.  625,  33  69  Wright  v.  Oakley.  5  Met.  406 

L.  Ed.  1080;  Vietor  v.  Arthur,  104  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co.  v.  Jol 

U.  S.  498,  26  L.  Ed.  633;  Pratt  v.  iffe,  2  Wall.  450,  458,  17  L.  Ed.  805 

Street  Com'rs,  139  Mass.  559,  2  N.  Mitchell  v.  Halsey,  15  Wend.  241 

E.  675;  Broaddus  v.  Broaddus,  10  Douglas  v.   Douglas,  5  Hun,  140 

Bush,  299;  Commonwealth  v.  Ma-  Matter  of  Southworth,  id.  55;  Staf 

son,  82  Ky.  256:  Cambria  Iron  Co.  ford  v.  His  Creditors,  11  La.  Ann 

v.  Ashburn.  118  U.  S.  54,   6  S.  C.  470;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Wiltz.  id.  439, 

Rep.  920,  30  L.  Ed.  60.  ""Winn   v.  Jones,   6   Leifili,   74. 

68  Bracken  v.  Smith,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  Blackford  v.  Hurst,  26  Gratt.  206; 
169;  Murdock  v.  Memphis,  20  Wall.  Hurley  v.  Town  ol  Texas,  x.'0  Wis. 
617,  22  L.   Ed.   429;  Heckmunn  v.  0D4. 

Pinkney,  81  N.  Y.  211;  Johnston's 


Ki  1M   \l>    -\M»    REPEALING    At.  IS. 

il  statutes  may  be  resorted  to  for  ascertaining  that 
meaning.71  h\  Bach  ms.'  the  title  of  the  original  act  may 
be  considered,  especially  where  such  act  is  passed  in  a  state 

.institution   requires  the   subject  to    be    there   ex- 
d.7S     In  Louisiana  it  seems  to  be  settled  that  the  rec 
enactment  into  a  code  of  the  general  provisions  of  prior  laws 
not  repeal  exceptions  to  which  those  general  provis- 
ions were  subject.71 

272.  Apparent  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  —  Ef- 
fect of  express  repeal  of  inconsistent  acts  and  parts  of 
acts. —  "Where  the  revising  act  prescribes  its  operation  or 
upon  a  previous  statute,  it  will  have  no  other.74  Where 
a  revising  act  is  declared  to  be  in  aid  of  and  supplemental  to 
the  former,  the  latter  is  continued  in  force  as  to  all  provis- 
ions which  are  not  repugnant  to  the  new  act.75  There  is 
apparently  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  a 
clause  in  the  revising  act  which  expressly  repeals  all  incon- 
sistent acts  and  parts  of  acts.76  If  the  new  act  is  intended 
as  a  revision  and  substitute  for  the  former  act  or  acts,  the 
gi  ueral  rule  applies,  and  the  former  act  or  acts  are  repealed 
in  toto  though  they  may  contain  parts  or  provisions  which  are 
not  em  braced  in  the  new  act  and  are  not  repugnant  to  its 
provisions.77  Some  cases,  however,  hold  that  the  insertion 
of  such  an  express  repealing  clause  implies  that  the  acts 

"i  United  States  v.  Bo  wen,  100  U.  N.  Y.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  42  N.  Y.  Super. 

:  ,  J..  Ed.  631;  United  States  Ct.  383. 

v.  Hirsch,  id.  3:3,  25  L.  Ed.  539;  Vie-  7a  People  v.  Harris,  123  N.  Y.  70, 

tor  v.  Arthur,  104  U.  S.  498,  36  L,  25  N.  E.  317. 

Ed.  633;  Myer  v.  Car  Co.,  102  U.  S.  ™See  ante,  §  250. 

L    Ed  59;   United  States  v.  77  Attorney-General    v.    Parsall, 

Laoher,  134  U.  S.  024,  10  S.  C.  Rep.  100  Mich.  170,  58  N.  W.  839;  State 

.  L,  Ed  1080.  v.  Carron  Hill  Coal  Co.,  4  Wash. 

•-  Myer  v.  Car  Co.,  102  U.  S.  1,  20  422.  30  Pac.  728;  Baer  v.  Choir.  7 

L  E  Wash.  031,  32  Pac.  776,  36  Pac.  286; 

rcier,  3  Martin  (N.  Smith  v.  Kau  Claire,  78  Wis.  457,47 

,.  15  Am.  Dec.  156.  N.  W.  v:i0;  The  Paqueta  Habana, 

.  T. tu. ii,  :;  Sawy.  175  I"  s.  677,  20  S.  E.  Rep.  290,  44 

164,                 .  No.  10,830;  Puraell  v.  L.  Ed.  320. 


KEPEALS    AND   KEPEALING    ACTS.  523 

and  parts  of  acts  not  inconsistent  were  not  intended  to  be 
repealed,  and  consequently  that  they  remain  in  force.78 

An  Illinois  act  of  1872  in  regard  to  justices  of  the  peace 
and  constables,  in  sections  75  to  80  provided  for  writs  of 
certiorari  from  the  circuit  court  to  justices  of  the  peace  and 
prescribed  the  procedure  in  such  cases.  In  1895  an  act 
was  passed  to  revise  the  law  in  regard  to  justices  of  the 
peace  and  constables,  which  omitted  the  above  sections  and 
made  no  provision  for  such  writs.  The  new  act,  in  several 
sections,  recognized  the  right  to  such  a  writ.  It  was  held 
that  the  sections  in  question  were  not  repealed.79  An  act 
for  the  organization  and  management  of  industrial  schools, 
for  the  care  and  training  of  such  boys  and  girls  as  might  be 
committed  to  them  under  the  act,  provided  that  the  expense 
of  the  children  so  committed  should  be  borne  by  the  county 
of  their  residence.  Afterwards  the  act  was  revised  and  this 
provision  was  omitted  and  no  provision  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  expense.  It  was  held  that  the  provision  was 
not  repealed.80  An  act  to  revise  and  consolidate  the  vari- 
ous acts  on  a  general  subject  will  not  repeal  a  particular 
act  relating  to  some  branch  of  that  subject  which  is  omit- 
ted from  the  revision  and  whose  subject-matter  is  not  cov- 
ered by  it.  Thus,  an  act  to  revise  the  criminal  law  and 
containing  no  provisions  on  the  subject  of  pools,  trusts,  and 
conspiracies  in  restraint  of  trade,  was  held  not  to  repeal  a 
particular  act  on  that  subject.81  So  a  general  revision  of 
the  revenue  laws  was  held  not  to  repeal  the  inheritance  tax 

78  Bank  of  British  North  Amer-  449,38  Tac.  1134;  Lewis  v.  Stout, 

ica  v.  Cahn,  79  Cal.  463,  21  Pac.  863;  22  Wis.  234;  Holden  v.  Minnesota,' 

Johnson  v.  Southern  Mutual  B.  &  137  U.  S.  483,  11  S.  E.  Rep.  143,  34 

L.  Ass'n,  97  Ga.  622,  25  S.  E.  358;  L.  Ed.  734. 

Gaston  v.  Merriam,  33  Minn.  271, 22  ™  Gibson    v.   Ackerrnan,  70    III. 

N.   W.   614;    Barden   v.    Wells,  14  App.  399. 

Mont.  462,  36  Pac.   1046;  State  v.  so  Wisconsin    Industrial    School 

Craig,  22  Ohio  C.   C.  441;  State  v.  for  Girls  v.  Clark  County,  103  Wis. 

Pollard,  6  R  I.  290;  Hurst  v.  Sam-  651,  79  N.  W.  422. 

uels,  29  S.  C.  476,  7  S.  E  822;  Cosh-  81  Common  wealth    v.   Grinstead, 

Murray  Co.  v.  Tuttich,   10  Wash.  10S  Ky.  59,  57  S.  W.  471. 


.V'l 


R]  n  \i  s    and    kki-kai.ino    acts. 


law,  nor  a  law  imposing  a  privilege  tax  on  railroads;  the 
new  law  being  silent  on  those  subjects.82  A  revision  of  the 
law  in  regard  to  local  improvements  was  held  not  to  repeal 
a  provision  of  the  former  law  prescribing  a  special  limita- 
tion for  the  bringing  of  any  suit  to  set  aside  or  enjoin  a 
special  assessment.83 

§  273.  Repeal  and  re-enactment —  Effect  of  re-enact- 
ment on  intermediate  acts. —  This  subject  has  already  been 
considered  to  some  extent  in  a  former  chapter.84  Where  an 
act  is  amended  or  revised,  and  the  former  act  expressly  or 
by  implication  repealed,  such  provisions  of  the  old  law  as 
are  substantially  re-enacted  are  deemed  to  be  continuous.8' 
"A  later  law  which  is  merely  a  re-enactment  of  a  former 
does  not  repeal  an  intermediate  act  which  has  qualified  or 
limited  the  first  one,  but  such  intermediate  act  will  be 
deemed  to  remain  in  force,  and  to  qualify  or  modify  the 


v-Z:«-kler  v.  Union  Bank  &  T. 
Co.,  104  Tenn.  277,  57  S.  W.  841. 

-  Kansas  City  v.  Kimball,  CO 
Kan.  224,  56  Pac.  78.  See  also  In 
re  Assignment  of  Gilbert,  94  Wis. 
108,  C,s  X.  W.  8G3. 

e  ante,  U  234,  238. 

w  Forbes  v.  Board  of  Health,  27 
Fla.  189,  9  So.  446.  2G  Am.  St.  Rep. 
63;  Swan  v.  Kemp,  97  MA  686; 
State  v.  Mason,  153  Mo.  23,  54  S.  W. 
Sternberg  v.  State,  50  Neb. 
127.  69  N.  W.  849;  S.  C.  on  rehear- 
in-  no  X-b.  i:3!i,  69  X.  W.  853;  State 
v.  \Vimpfheimer,  GO  N.  H.  166,  38 
AtL  786;  State  v.  Bellamy,  120  N. 
C.  212.  27  S.  E.  113;  Robinson  v. 
-boro,  122  N.  C.  211,  30  S.  E. 
Gull  River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Lee, 
7  X.  D.  135,  78  X.  W.  4::0;  Wella 
County  v.  McHenry,  7  N.  D.  246,  74 
X.  W.  241;  Barclay  v.  Leas,  9  Pa. 
Ca  Ct  814;  Pratt  v.  Swan,  1G 
Utah,  ;- .;.  62  Pad   1092;   State  v. 


Mines,  38  W.  Va.  125,  18  S.  E.  470; 
Burns  v.  Hays,  44  W.  Va.  503,  30  S. 
E.  101;  Cox  v.  N.  W.  Lumber  Co., 
82  Wis.  141,  51  N.  W.  1130;  Bear 
Lake  &  Riv.  W.  W.  &  Irr.  Co.  v. 
Garland.  1G4  U.  S.  1,  17  S.  G  Rep. 
7,  41  L.  Ed.  327;  Julien  v.  Model  B., 
L.  &  L  Ass'n,  116  Wis.  79,  92  N.  W. 
561;  Hellman  v.  Shoulters,  114  Cal. 
136,  45  Pac.  IOCS;  State  v.  Kates, 
149  Ind.  46,  48  N.  E.  365;  Hancock 
v.  District  Township,  78  Iowa.  550, 
43  N.  W.  527;  State  v.  Bern  is,  45 
Neb.  724,  64  N.  W.  348;  Matter  of 
Da  vies,  168  N.  Y.  89,  61  N.  E.  118; 
Matter  of  Brundage,  31  App.  Div. 
348,  52  N.  Y.  S.  362;  Mudgett  v. 
Liebes,  14  Wash.  482,  45  Pac.  19; 
State  v.  Howe,  95  Wis.  530,  70  N. 
W.  G70;  Dennison  v.  Allen,  106 
Midi.  295,  64  N.  W.  38;  State  v. 
Prouty,  115  Iowa,  657,  84  X.  W.  670; 
Matter  of  Estate  of  Prine,  136  X.  Y. 
8  IT,  33  X.  E.  1091, 18  L  R,  A.  713. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  525 

new  act  in  the  same  manner  as  it  did  the  first."86  This 
is  especially  true  if  the  intermediate  law  is  special  or  par- 
ticular and  the  re-enacted  law  is  a  general  law  on  the  same 
subject.87  Where  a  law  is  amended  and  re-enacted  as 
amended,  any  intermediate  law  inconsistent  with  the  new 
matter  introduced,  or  change  made  by  the  amendment,  will 
be  repealed.88  Where  a  law  is  substantially  re-enacted  it  i? 
said  to  show  that  the  legislature  did  not  regard  it  as  repug- 
nant to  an  intermediate  act  to  some  extent  coverins'  the 
same  subject.89  A  town  charter  granted  in  1857  forbade  the 
sale  of  liquor.  An  amendment  made  in  1859  gave  power  tc 
license  its  sale.  In  1870  the  charter  of  1857  was  re-enacted 
and  the  limits  of  the  town  extended.  This  was  held  not  tc 
repeal  the  act  of  1859,  but  to  be  a  mere  declaration  that  the 
act  of  1857  was  still  in  force,  and  related  back  to  the  tima 
of  its  original  passage.90  Section  5  of  an  act  of  Nevada  of 
1885  in  regard  to  the  compensation  of  county  officers  fixed 
the  compensation  of  the  county  officers  of  Elk  county,  giv- 
ing the  sheriff  certain  fees,  the  district  attorney  a  salary  of 
§2,000  and  the  superintendent  of  schools  a  salary  of  $600 
February  23,  1887,  an  act  was  passed  to  consolidate  certain 
county  offices,  which  provided  that  district  attorneys  should 
be  ex  officio  superintendents  of  schools  without  additional 
compensation.  On  March  5,  1887,  section  5  of  the  act  of 
1885  was  amended  so  as  to  give  the  sheriff  of  Elk  county  a 
salary  of  $4,000,  in  lieu  of  fees,  and  the  section  re-enacted 

86  Harrison  v.  Board  of  Super-  414;  State  v.  Beard,  21  Nev.  218,  29 
visors,  117  Mich.  215,  75  N.  W.  456;  Pac.  531;  State  v.  Commissioners, 
Powell  v.  King,  78  Minn.  83,  80  N.     106  Wis.  584,  82  N.  W.  549. 

W.  850;  Hawes  v.  Fliegler,  87  Minn.  8S  Hawes  v.  Fliegler,  87  Minn.  319, 

319,  92  N.  W.  223;  Co-operative  S.  92  N.  W.  223;    Commonwealth   v. 

&  L.  Ass'n  v.  Fawick,  11  S.  D.  589,  Taylor,  159  Pa.  St.  451,  28  Atl.  348; 

79  N.  W.  847;  Bently  v.  Adams,  92  Sheriff  v.  Kershaw  County,  56  S.  C. 

Wis.  386,  66  N.  W.  505;  Haritwen  400,  34  S.  E.  694. 

v.  The   Louis  Olsen,  52  Fed.  652;  8a  Lynch  v.  Chase,  55  Kan.  367,  40 

The   Louis  Olsen   v.  Haritwen,  57  Pac.  666. 

Fed.  845.  90  Horn  v.  State,  114  Ga.  509,  40 

87  Gazollo  v.  McCann,  63  Mo.  App.  S.  E.  768. 


i:i  rr  \i  -    AM'    REPE  \i  i.nc    A.OTS. 

inoluding  the  salary  of  $600  for  the  superintendenl  of  schools. 
It  was  held  that  the  only  object  of  the  net  of  1887  was  to 
change  the  compensation  of  the  sheriff  to  a  salary,  that  it 
did  not  repeal  oraffeot  the  act  of  February,  1887,  and  that 
the  district  attorney  was  not  entitled  to  the  salary  of  $600 
as  superintendent  of  schools.91 

§  -J?4  (157*.  Asa  rule  general  laws  will  not  impliedly 
repeal  those  which  are  Special  or  local.— A  general  law 
prescribing  a  rule  universal  as  to  a  subject  properly  includes 
that  entire  subject  and  operates  over  every  partof  the  state. 
The  common  law  adapts  itself  to  varying  conditions  by  its 
flexible  principles;  but  statutes  are  made  to  apply  to  given 
conditions  by  classifications,  provisos,  exceptions  and  limit- 
ations. A  general  law  may  thus  be  prevented  from  oper- 
Lg  upon  every  subject,  and  from  taking  effect  in  every 
place.  The  purpose  of  a  general  act  relative  to  a  given 
subject  may  harmonize  with  a  different  purpose  on  that 
subject  in  a  particular  locality,  or  under  special  conditions, 
or  as  it  affects  a  particular  interest  or  a  particular  person  or 
class;  it  may  harmonize  in  the  sense  that  both  purposes 
may  be  effectuated.  The  purpose  of  the  general  law  may 
be  carried  out  except  as  to  the  particulars  in  which  a  differ- 
ent intention  is  manifested.  It  is  a  principle  that  a  general 
statute  without  negative  words  will  not  repeal  by  implica- 
tion from  their  repugnancy  the  provisions  of  a  former  one 
which  is  special,  local,  or  particular,  or  which  is  limited  in 
its  application,  unless  there  is  something  in  the  general  law 

91  State  v.  Elk  County  Com'rs,  21  the  rules  which  have  been  adopted 

135.     In  Hawes  v.  by  the  courts  to  construe  acts  of 

Flic                rfinn.  319,  92  N.  W.  223,  the  h^islature  have  the  ultimate 

the  courl  Bays:  "A  statute  amend-  ohjectof  discovering  their  sensible 

ing  a  |  revious  one,  while  it  might  design,  rather  than  to  reach  logical 

not  affect  an  intermediate  law,  if  deductions,  since  the  intention  of 

ive   best  expression  to  the   legislature   should  always  be 

tin-  legislative  will,  should  he  held  followed  whenever  it  can  be  dis- 

to  do  so  if  a  reasonable  regard  for  covered,  although  the  construction 

:.[  parent  purpose  of  the  law-  seem  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the> 

makers   required  that  result,   for  statute." 


REPEALS  ASD  REPEALING  ACTS. 


527 


or  in  the  course  of  legislation  upon  its  subject-matter  that 
makes  it  manifest  that  the  legislature  contemplated  and 
intended  a  repeal.92  "  It  is  the  established  rule  of  construe- 
tion  that  the  law  does  not  favor  a  repeal  by  implication,  but 


92  City  Council  v.  National  B.  & 
L.  Ass'n,  108  Ala.  336,  18  So.  816; 
Boy  v.  Henderson,  132  Ala.  175,  31 
So.  457;  Ex  parte  Smith,  40  Cal. 
419;  Wood  v.  Election  Com'rs,  58 
Cal.  561;  People  v.  Sands,  102  Cal. 
12,  36  Pac.  404;  Banks  v.  Yolo 
County,  104  Cal.  258,  37  Pac.  900; 
People  v.  Pacific  Imp.  Co.,  130  Cal. 
440,  62  Pac.  739;  Schwenke  v. 
Union  Depot  &  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Colo. 
512,  5  Pac.  816;  Rice  v.  Goodwin, 
2  Colo.  App.  267,  30  Pac.  330;  New 
York,  N  H.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Bridgeport  Traction  Co.,  65  Conn. 
410,  32  Atl.  953,  29  L.  R.  A.  367;  Ter- 
ritory v.  McPherson,  6  Dak.  27, 50  N. 
W.  351;  United  States  v.  Sampson, 
19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  419;  Haywood  v. 
Mayor,  12  Ga.  404;  Mayor  v.  Minor, 
70  Ga.  191;  McGruder  v.  State,  83 
Ga.  616,  10  S.  E.  441;  Montford  v. 
Allen,  111  Ga.  18,  36  S.  E.  305;  West- 
ern &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta, 
113  Ga.  537.  38  S.  E.  996,  54  L.  R.  A. 
294;  Covington  v.  East  St.  Louis, 
78  111.  548;  People  v.  Mayor,  130  111. 
406,  22  N.  E.  833;  Kuenster  v.  Board 
of  Education,  134  111.  165,  24  N.  E. 
609;  Cook  County  v.  Gilbert,  146 
111.  268,  33  N.  E.  761;  Trausch  v. 
Cook  County,  147  Til.  534,  35  N.  E. 
477;  Ridgway  v.  Gallatin  County, 
181  111.  521,  55  N.  E.  146;  People  v. 
Brown,  189  111.  619,  00  N.  E.  46; 
People  v.  Marquiss,  193  111.  377,  61 
N.  E.  352;  Quincy  v.  O'Brien,  24111. 
App.  591;  Rushville  v.  Rushville, 
31  111.  App.  320;  Gilbert  v.  Cook 
County,  44  111.  App.  69;  People  v. 


Mount,  87  HI.  App.  194;  Shea  v. 
Muncie,  148  Ind.  14,  46  N.  E.  138; 
Commonwealth  v.  Cain,  14  Bush, 
525;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Owens- 
boro,  85Ky.265;  Cravens  v.  Adair 
County  Court,  17  Ky.  L.  R.  71,  30 
S.  W.  414;  Board  of  Trustees  v. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Ky.  L. 
R.  160,  30  S.  W.  620;  Mauget  v. 
Plummer,  21  Ky.  L.  R.  641,  52  S. 
W.  844;  State  v.  Labatut,  39  La. 
Ann.  513,  2  So.  550;  Garrett  v. 
Mayor,  47  La.  Ann.  618,  17  So.  238: 
Cooper  v.  Holmes,  71  Md.  20,  17 
Atl.  711;  McCracken  v.  State,  71 
Md.  150,  17  Atl.  932;  Crane  v. 
Reeder,  22  Mich.  322,  334;  High- 
land Park  v.  McAlpine,  117  Mich. 
666,  76  N.  W.  159;  University  Re- 
gents v.  Auditor-General,  109 Mich. 
134,  66 N.  W.  956;  Tierney  v.  Dodge, 
9  Minn.  166;  State  v.  Archibald,  43 
Minn.  328,  45  N.  W.  606;  Moore  v. 
Minneapolis,  43  Minn.  418,  45  N.  W. 
719;  State  v.  Egan,  64  Minn.  331, 67 
N.  W.  77;  Trautman  v.  McLeod, 
74  Minn.  110,  76  N.  W.  964;  State  v. 
Lindquist,  77  Minn.  540,  80  N.  W. 
701;  Deters  v.  Renick,  37  Mo.  597; 
McVey  v.  McVey,  51  Mo.  406;  Pa- 
cific R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cass  County,  53 
Mo.  17;  State  v.  Severance,  55  Mo. 
378,  386;  State  v.  De  Bar.  58  Mo. 
395;  State  v.  Frazier,  98  Mo.  426,  11 
S.  W.  973;  State  v.  Wal bridge,  119 
Mo.  383,  24  S.  W.  457,  41  Am.  St. 
Rep.  663;  State  v.  St.  Louis  School 
Board,  131  Mo.  505.  33  S.  W.  3;  Wil- 
son v.  Knox  County,  132  Mo.  387, 
34  S.  W.  45,  477;  State  v.  Slover,' 


i:i  itai  s    AM'    R)  i-i   \i  ING    A.0T8. 


that  where  there  are  two  or  more  provisions  relating  to  tho 
Barae  subject-matter  they  must,  if  possible,  l>c  construed  so 

as  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  both.     It  is  also  a  rule  that 
whore  two  statutes  treat  ot*  the  same  subject,  one   being 


l  !  Mo.  10,  81  S.  W.  1054,  34  S.  W. 
1103;  Rusohenberg  v.  Southern 
trio  R.  R.  Co.,  161  Mo.  70,01  S. 
W.  620;  State  v.  Fitzporter,  17  Mo. 
App.  271,  274;  state  v.  Willard,  a'.) 
Ma  App.  251;  State  v.  Daly,  49  Mo. 
A  pp.  184;  Tinkel  v.  Griffen,  26 
Mont.  420.  OS  Pac.  859;  Jackson  v. 
Board  of  Sup're,  34  Neb.  CS0.G8G.087, 
52  X.  W.  169;  Daw.-on  County  v. 
Clark,  58  Neb.  756.  79  N.  W.  822; 
Koantze  v.  Omaha,  63  Neb. 
X.  W.  117;  State  v.  Brauin,  23  N. 
J.  L  484;  State  v.  Belvidere.  25  X. 
J.  L.  563;  State  v.  Mills,  34  X.  J.  L. 
v.   Hill,  43  X.  J.  L. 

Vail  v.  Easton,  etc.  R.  R.  Co,, 
44  X.  J.  L.  237;  Sheridan  v.  Steven- 

14    N.    J.    L.    371;    People   v. 

Palmer,    52    N.   Y.    83;  People   v. 

59  X.  Y.  83;    McKenna  v. 

Edmundstone,  91  N.  Y  231;  Weller 

x.  Nembach,  114  X.  Y.  3G.20  X.  E. 

Buffalo  Cem.  Ass'n  v.  Buffalo, 

JN.E962;Casterton 

v.  Vienna.   163  X.  Y.  368,   57  X.  E. 

Parker  v.  Elmira,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  105  X.  Y.  274.  5!)  X.  E.  si ;  People 
v.  Supervisors,  40  Hun,  353;  People 
v.  Edwards,  50  Hun,  377,  ION.  Y. 
S.  335;  People  v.  Pierson,  59  Hun, 
450,  13  X.  Y  S.  3G5;  Reynolds  v. 
Niagara  Falls,  81  Hun,  353,  30  N. 

954;  Matter  of  Taylor,  3  App. 
Div.  244,  88  X.  Y.  S.  348;  Boeohat 
v.  Brown,  9  App.  Div.  309,  41  N.  Y. 

; :  Lewis  v.  Syracuse,  13  App. 

Div.  5-:,  48  X.  Y.  S.  455;  People  v. 

Keller,  31   App.   lav.  248,  52  X.  Y. 

50;    People  v.  Keller,  35  App. 


Div.  493,  54  N.  Y.  S.  1011;  People  v. 
O'Grady,  16  App.  lav.  218,  01  X.  Y. 
s.  577;  Walden  v.  Relyea,  89  App. 
Div.  241;  McLaughlin  v.  Page,  14 
Daly,  274;  People  v.  Carson,  10 
Miso.  237,  30  N.  Y.  S.  817;  Robbins 
v.  State.  8  Ohio  St.  131,  191;  Ginu 
v.  Commissioners,  11  Ohio  C.  C. 
39G:  State  v.  Commissioners,  2  Ohio 
C.  D.  227;  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  R. 
R,  Co.  v.  Haynes,  8  Old.  57G,  58  Pac. 
738;  State  v.  Sturgess,  10  Ore.  58; 
Omit  v.  Commonwealth,  21  Pa.  St. 
420;  Dyerv.  Covin- ton,  28  Pa.  St. 
1SG;  JefTerson  v.  Reitz,  5G  Pa.  St. 
44;  Rounds  v.  Waymbnt,  81  Pa 
395;  Harrisburg  v.  Speck,  104  Pa. 
St.  53;  Dick's  Appeal,  100  Pa.  St. 
589;  Mallory  v.  Commonwealth, 
115  Pa.  St.  25,  7  Atl.  790;  Morrison 
v.  layette  County,  127  Pa.  St.  110, 
17  Atl.  755;  Murdock's  Petition, 
149  Pa.  St.  341,  24  Atl.  222;  Bell  v. 
Allegheny  County,  149  Pa.  St.  381, 
24  Atl.  209;  Safe  Deposit  &  T.  Co. 
v.  Fricke,  152  Pa.  St.  231,  25  Atl. 
5:!0;  Shroder  v.  Lancaster,  170  Pa. 
St.  136,  32  Atl.  587;  Commonwealth 
v.  Cotton,  14  Phila.  667;  Reading  v. 
Shepp,  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  137;  North 
To  wan  da  v.  Bradford  County,  2  Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  517;  Commonwealth  v. 
Angle,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  637;  Provi- 
dence v.  Union  R.  R.  Co.,  12  R.  I. 
473;  Lowrey  v.  Mayor,  23  R.  I.  284, 
49  Atl.  903;  Ex  parte  Schmidt,  24 
S.  C.  303;  Barnett  v.  Maloney,  97 
Tenn.  097,  37  S.  W.  G89,  34  L.  R,  A. 
541 ;  Houston  &  Tex.  Cent.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  State,  95  Tex.  507,  C2S.  W.  114; 


REPEALS   AND   EEPEALING    ACTS. 


529 


special  and  the  other  general,  unless  they  are  irreconcilably 
inconsistent,  the  latter,  although  latest  in  date,  will  not  be 
held  to  have  repealed  the  former,  but  the  special  act  will 
prevail  in  its  application  to  the  subject-matter  as  far  as 
coming  within  its  particular  provisions.  A  special  statute 
providing  for  a  particular  place,  or  applicable  to  a  particular 
locality,  is  not  repealed  by  a  statute  general  in  its  terms 
and  application,  unless  the  intention  of  the  legislature  to 
repeal  or  alter  the  special  law  is  manifest,  although  the 
terms  of  the  general  act  would,  taken  strictly  and  but  for 
the  special  law,  include  the  case  or  cases  provided  for 
by  it." 93 

In  many  of  the  cases  just  cited  there  was  a  general  re- 
peal of  all  inconsistent  acts  and  parts  of  acts.     As  a  gen- 

vannah  v.  Kelly,  108  U.  S.  184,  2  S. 
C.  Rep.  468,  27  L.  Ed.  696;  Ex  parte 
Crow  Dog,  109  U.  S.  556,  3  S.  C. 
Rep.  396,  27  L.  Ed.  1030;  United 
States  v.  Greathouse,  166  U.  S.  601, 
17  S.  C.  Rep.  701,  41  L.  Ed.  1130; 
Rodgers  v.  United  States,  185  U.  S. 
83,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  582,  46  L.  Ed.  816; 
United  States  v.  Nix,  189  U.  S.  199, 
23  S.  C.  Rep.  495;  Conservators  of 
River  Thames  v.  Hall,  LE.3C.P. 
415;  Thorpe  v.  Adams,  L.  R.  6  C. 
P.  125;  Queen  v.  Champreys,  L.  R.  6 
C.   P.  384;  Mahoney  v.  Wright,  10 


Ogden  City  v.  Hamer,  12  Utah,  337, 
42  Pac.  1113;  University  of  Utah  v. 
Richards,  20  Utah,  457,  59  Pac.  96, 77 
Am.  St.  Rep.  928;  Town  School  Dis- 
trict v.  School  District,  72  Vt.  451,48 
Atl.  697;  Trehy  v.  Marye,  100  Va.  40, 
40  S.  E.  126 ;  Meade  v.  French,  4  Wash. 
11,  29  Pac.  833;  Seattle  &  Mont.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  O'Meara,  4  Wash.  17,  29  Pac. 
835;  Pierce  County  v.  Spike,  19 
Wash.  652,  53  Pac.  822;  Western 
Am.  Co.  v.  St.  Ann  Co.,  22  Wash. 
158,  60  Pac.  158;  Conley  v.  Super- 
visors,  2   W.   Va.    416;    Mason  v. 


Harper's  Ferry  Bridge  Co.,  17  W.     Ir.  C.  L.  (N.  S.)  420.     See  Red  Rock 


Va.  397;  Sturm  v.  Fleming,  31 
W.  Va.  701,  8  S.  E.  263;  Baines  v. 
Janesville,  100  Wis.  369,  75  N.  W. 
404;  Harris  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  104 
Wis.  44,  80  N.  W.  66;  Davies  v. 
Fairbairn,  3  How.  636,  11  L.  Ed. 
760;    State  v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  425, 


v.  Henry,  106  U.  S.  596,  1  S.  C.  Rep. 
434,  27  L.  Ed.  251. 

93  People  v.  Pacific  Imp.  Co., 
130  Cal.  442,  445,  446,  62  Pac. 
739.  Similar  expressions  of  opin- 
ion will  be  found  in  the  follow- 
ing cases:    Ridgeway   v.  Gallatin 


21  L.  Ed.  650;    Movius  v.  Arthur,     County,  181  111.  521,   526,  55  N.  E 
95  U.  S.  144,  24  L.  Ed.  420;  Cass    146;  Moore  v.  Minneapolis,  43  Minn 


County  v.  Gillett,  100  U.  S.  585,  25 
L.  Ed.  585;  Kankakee  County  v. 
^Etna  Life  Ins.  Co.,  106  U.  S.  668, 
2  S.  C.  Rep.  80,  27  L  Ed.  309;  Sa- 
34 


418,  422,  45  N.  W.  719;  State  v. 
Egan,  64  Minn.  331,  67  N.  W.  77; 
State  v.  St.  Louis  School  Board,  131 
Mo.  505,  516,  33  S.  W.3;  Kountze  v. 


i:i  riAi.s    AND    liV.VY.  \i  ING    ACTS. 


eral  rule  the  insertion  of  this  general  repealing  clause  does 
not  add  anything  to  the  effect  of  ttoe  general  act  to  repeal 
local  or  special  laws."1  But  where  there  was  only  one  gen- 
eral act  upon  which  the  clause  could  operate  and  there 
were  many  inconsistent  local  acts,  it  was  held  that  the  lat- 
ter were  repealed.94 

When  the  legislator  frames  a  statute  in  general  terms  or 
treats  a  subject  in  a  general  manner,  it  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  he  intends  to  abrogate  particular  legislation 
to  the  details  of  which  he  had  previously  given  his  atten- 
tion, applicable  only  to  a  part  of  the  same  subject,  unless 
the  general  act  shows  a  plain  intention  to  do  so.96 


I  >maha.  G3  Neb.  52,  54,88  N.  W.  117; 
Buffalo  rem.  Ass'n  v.  Buffalo,  118 
\.  Y.  61.  66,  22  N.  EL  962;  Atchison, 
T.  &  S.  F,  R.  R  Co.  v.  Haynes,  8 
Ok  I.  ■"  ~  Pac.738. 

"4  Reading  v.  Shepp,  2  Pa,  Dist. 
Ct    I  rton  v.  Vienna,  163 

N.  Y.  368,  5";  N.  E.  622.  See  State 
v.  Butcher.  93  Tenn.  679,  28  S.  W. 
Felts  v.  Delaware;  L.  &  W. 
I;.  K.  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  432,  33  Atl. 
97;  S.  C.  178  Pa.  St.  290;  Felts  v. 
Delaware,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  195 
Pa  St.  21,  45  Atl.  493. 

»* Commonwealth  v.Middletown, 
:{Pa.  Dist.  Ct  639;  Common  wealth 
v.  McDonnell,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  767. 

8«Crow  Dog,  Ex  parte,  109  U.  S. 
556,  3  S.  G  Rep.  396, 27  L.  Ed.  1030; 
Dwarris  on  St.  532;  Sedgw.  St.  & 
it  I-  98;  State  v.  Judge  of  St. 
Louis  P.  Ct,  38  Mo.  529;  Brown  v. 
County  Commissioners,  21  Pa.  St. 
3tate  v.  Treasurer,  41  Mo.  10, 
24;  Fosdick  v.  Perrysburg.  14  Ohio 
St.  472;  Bobbins  v.  State.  8  id.  131, 
191;  Williams  v.  Pritchard,  4  T.  R. 
2;  Fitzgerald  v.  Charnpneys,  30  L. 
.(.  Ch.  782;  s.  C.  2  Johns.  &  H.  31; 
Thompson  v.  State,  60  Ark.  59,  28 


S.  W.  794;  Mills  v.  Sanderson,  G8 
Ark.  130,  56  S.  W.  779;  Home  for 
Inebriates  v.  Reis,  95  Cal.  142,  30 
Pac.  205;  Bateman  v.  Colgan,  111 
Cal.  580,  44  Pac.  238;  People  v. 
Hutchinson,  172  111.  486,  50  N.  E. 
599;  Kelly  v.  School  Directors,  66 
111.  App.  134;  Rankin  v.  Cowden, 
66  111.  App.  137;  McDonnough 
County  v.  Thomas,  84  111.  App.  408; 
Arnold  v.  Council  Bluffs,  85  Iowa, 
441,  52  N.  W.  317;  Boyd  v.  Ran- 
dolph, 91  Ky.  472,  16  S.  W.  133; 
Music  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
Ill  Mo.  309.  21  S.  W.  491;  State  v. 
District  Court,  14  Mont.  452,  37 
Pac.  9;  Mantle  v.  Largey,  15  Mont. 
110,  41  Pac.  1077;  Rymer  v.  Lu- 
zerne County,  142  Pa.  St  108,  21 
Atl.  794,  12  L.  R.  A.  192;  Altoona 
v.  Calvert,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  362; 
Hayes  v.  Arrington,  108  Tenn.  494, 
68  S.  W.  44;  People  v.  Utah  Com'rs, 
7  Utah,  279,  26  Pac.  577;  State  v. 
Carson,  0  Wash.  250.  33  Pac.  428; 
State  v.  Purdy,  14  Wash.  343,  44 
Pac.  857;  Call  vert  v.  Winsor,  26 
Wash.  368,  67  Pac.  91;  State  v. 
Hobe,  100  Wis.  411,  82  N.  W.  336. 
In  State  v.  Mc Curdy,  62  Minn. 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


531 


§  275  (158).  The  special  act  must  conflict,  so  far  as  it 
operates  to  the  extent  of  its  lesser  scope,  with  the  general 
act;  otherwise  there  would  generally  be  no  question  of  re- 
peal; it  expresses  a  particular  intent  incompatible,  pro  tanto, 
with  the  intent  of  the  general  law.  The  general  law  can 
have  full  effect  beyond  the  scope  of  the  special  law,  and, 
by  allowing  the  latter  to  operate  according  to  its  special 
aim,  the  two  acts  can  stand  together.  Unless  there  is  plain 
indication  of  an  intent  that  the  general  act  shall  repeal  the 
other,  it  will  continue  to  have  effect,  and  the  general  words 
with  which  it  conflicts  will  be  restrained  and  modified  ac- 
cordingly.97 Where  there  are  in  one  actor  several  contem- 
poraneously passed,  specific  provisions  relating  to  a  par- 
ticular subject,  they  will  govern  in  respect  to  that  subject 
as  against  general  provisions  contained  in  the  same  acts.98 


509,  516,  517,  64  N.  W.  1133,  the 
court  says:  "Repeals  by  implica- 
tion are  not  favored.  The  ques- 
tion is  one  of  legislative  intent, 
and  its  intent  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained, as  legislative  intent  is 
ascertained  in  other  respects,  when 
not  expressly  declared,  by  con- 
struction. Considerations  of  con- 
venience, justice  and  reasonable- 
ness, when  they  can  be  invoked 
against  the  implication  of  repeal, 
are  always  very  potent.  Where  a 
general  intention  is  expressed,  and 
also  a  particular  intention  is  ex- 
pressed which  is  incompatible  with 
the  general  one,  the  particular  in- 
tention shall  be  considered  an  ex- 
ception to  the  general  one.  Thus, 
when  the  legislature  enacts  a  stat- 
ute in  general  terms  it  is  not  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  they  in- 
tended to  abrogate  particular  legis- 
lation, to  the  details  of  which  they 
had  previously  given  their  atten- 
tion, unless  the  general  act  shows 


a  plain  intention  to  do  so.  The 
general  law  can  have  full  effect 
beyond  the  scope  of  the  particular 
or  special  act,  and,  by  allowing  the 
latter  to  operate  according  to  its 
special  aim,  the  two  acts  can  stand 
together." 

^Dwarris  on  St.  765;  Stockett  v. 
Bird,  18  Md.  484;  Crane  v.  Reeder, 
22  Mich.  322,  334;Fosdickv.  Perrys- 
burg,  14  Ohio  St.  472;  Williams  v. 
Pritchard,  4  T.  R.  2. 

98  Felt  v.  Felt,  19  Wis.  193,  196; 
State  v.  Goetz,  22  id.  363;  Crane  v. 
Reeder,  22  Mich.  322.  In  Nusser  v. 
Commonwealth,  25  Pa.  St.  126,  the 
question  was  whether  an  act  impos- 
ing a  fine  of  $50  for  selling  liquors 
on  Sunday  within  the  county  of 
Allegheny,  and  authorizing  a  sum- 
mary conviction  before  a  single 
justice  of  the  peace,  was  repealed 
by  a  later  statute  imposing  the 
same  penalty  for  the  same  offense 
committed  anywhere  in  the  state, 
and  prescribing  a  mode  of  proced- 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


It  seems  to  be  immaterial  which  statute  is  first  enacted. 
If  the  special  Btatute  is  later  the  enactment  operates  neces- 
sarily to  restriot  the  effeot  of  the  general  act  from  which  it 
differs." 

These  interpretations  harmonize  with  tho  rule  that  when 
a  general  intention  is  expressed,  and  also  a  particular  in- 
tention, which  is  incompatible  with  the  general  one,  the 
particular  intention  shall  be  considered  an  exception  to  the 
general  (Mm.1  The  special  act  is  in  the  nature  of  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  law  and  suspends  its  operation  in  the 
Held  covered  by  the  special  act,  and  when  the  latter  is  re- 


ure  by  indictment  and  jury  trial. 
It  was  held  to  have  the  effect  of 
repeal.  The  court  say:  "Where 
tiir  prior  enactment  is  local  and 
the  new  one  general  in  its  opera- 
tion, the  maxim  [that  a  repugnant 
statute  is  a  repeal  of  a' I  inconsist- 
ent provisions  in  a  prior]  applies 
with  undiminished  force,  because 
the  whole  includes  the  several 
parts,  and  all  local  laws  establish- 
ing one  rule  for  one  portion  of  the 
community,  and  a  different  one 
for  the  remaining  portion,  are  in- 
convenient and  of  doubtful  pro- 
priety, except  where  they  relate  to 
matters  which  are  local  in  their 
nature,  and  are  enacted  by  the 
r  municipal  authorities  of 
the  territories  over  which  they  are 
designed  to  operate." 

«>McGavick  v.  State,  34  N.  J.  L. 
509;  Smith,  Ex  parte,  40  Cal.  419; 
Galway  Presentments,  Ex  parte,9 
W,  R.  C.  L.  114  (Q.  B.);  The  Mayor  v. 
Macon,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Ga.  221; 
Townsend  v.  Little,  109  TJ.  S.  504,  :', 
S.  C.  Rep.  .'557,  27  L.  Ed.  1012; 
Plain  v.  Eailey,  25  Ind.  165;  Breden 
ite,  88  Ala  20,  7  So.  358;  Cot- 
ton v.  State,  62  Ark.  585,  37  S.  W. 


48;  Beatty  v.  Commonwealth,  91 
Ky.  813,  15  S.  W.  856;  Louisville  v. 
Garr,  97  Ky.  583,  31  S.  W.  281,  32  S. 
W.  7  IS;  State  v.  Towner,  20  Mont. 
339,  67  Pac.  1004;  Harrison  v.  Board 
of  Sup'rs,  117  Mich.  215,  75  N.  W. 
456;  Matter  of  Murray  Hill  Bank, 
153  N.  Y.  199,  47  N.  E.  298;  Barber 
County  Com'rs  v.  Society  for  Sav- 
ings, 101  Fed.  7G7,  41  C.  C.  A.  007; 
Howard  v.  Hulhert,  63  Kan.  793,  66 
Pac.  1041,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  267. 

l  Dwarris  on  St.  765;  Stockett  v. 
Bird,  18  Md.  484,  489;  Churchill  v. 
Crease,  5  Bing.  180;  Pilkington  v. 
Cooke.  16  M.  &  W.  615;  Taylor  v. 
Oldham.  4  Ch.  Div.  395;  In  re 
Rouse,  Hazard  &  Co.,  91  Fed.  96,  33 
C.  C.  A.  356.  "It  is  a  well  settled 
rule  of  construction  that,  when 
there  are  two  provisions,  one  of 
which  is  general  and  designed  to 
apply  to  cases  generally,  and  an- 
other is  particular  and  relating 
only  to  one  subject,  the  particular 
provision  must  prevail  and  must 
be  treated  as  an  exception  to  the 
general  provision."  Dahnke  v. 
People,  108  111.  102,  111,  48  N.  E.  137, 
39  L.  R.  A.  197. 


REPEALS    AND   REPEALING   ACTS.  533 

pealed  the  general  law  operates  as  if  the  special  law  had 
never  existed.2 

§  276  (159).  The  question  is  one  of  intent. —  There  is  no 
rule  of  law  which  prohibits  the  repeal  of  a  special  act  by  a 
general  one,  nor  is  there  any  principle  forbidding  such  re- 
peal without  the  use  of  words  declarative  of  that  intent. 
The  question  is  always  one  of  intention,  and  the  purpose  to 
abrogate  the  particular  enactment  by  a  later  general  statute 
is  sufficiently  manifested  when  the  provisions  of  both  cannot 
stand  together.  A  special  and  local  law  provided  that  cer- 
tain property  should  be  subject  to  taxation;  a  subsequent 
general  one  that  all  such  property  should  be  exempt,  and 
repealed  all  local  or  special  acts  inconsistent  with  its  provis- 
ions. It  was  held  that  the  special  act  was  repealed.3  Special 
or  local  laws  will  be  repealed  by  general  laws  when  the  inten- 
tion to  do  so  is  manifest,  as  where  the  latter  are  intended  to  es- 
tablish uniform  rules  for  the  whole  state.4  AYhere  there  is  an 
express  repeal  of  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts,  general  or  spe- 
cial, which  are  inconsistent,  the  intent  is  manifest.5  A  gen- 
eral law  for  the  care  of  the  poor  provided  that  it  should  not 
be  construed  to  repeal  any  local  acts  under  which  poor-houses 
had  been  built,  or  lands  bought,  or  buildings  commenced. 
This  was  held  to  show  an  intent  to  repeal  all  other  local  or 

2  Santa  Barbara  v.  Eldred,  95  Cal.  4  State  v.  Pearcy,  44  Mo.  159;  Peo 
378,  30  Pac.  562;  Territory  v.  Pratt,  pie  v.  Miner,  47  111.  33;  People  v. 
6  Dak.  483,43  N.  W.  711;  Buck-  Furman,85  Mich.  110.  48  N.  W.  169; 
waiter  v.  Lancaster  County,  12  Pa.  Buffalo  v.  Neal,  86  Hun,  76,  33  N. 
Supr.  Ct.  272.  Y.  S.  346;  People  v.  Brady,  49  App. 

3  New  Brunswick  v.  Williamson,  Div.  238,  63  N.  Y.  S.  145;  Barker  v. 
44  N.  J.  L.  165;  Pausch  v.  Guer-  Floyd, 61  App. Div. 92,60 N.Y.S.  1109; 
rard,  67  Ga.  319;  Mechanics'  &  Fraira  v.  Lancaster  County,  171  Pa. 
Traders',  Bank  v.  Bridges,  30  N.  J.  St.  436,  33  Atl.  339;  Jadwin  v.  Hur- 
L.  112;  State  v.  Miller,  id.  368,  86  ley,  10  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  104;  People 
Am.  Dec.  1S8;  Great  Central  Gas  v.  Dalton,  158  N.  Y.  175,  52  N.  E. 
Cons.    Co.    v.   Clarke,    13   Com.   B.  1113. 

(N.  S.)  838;  Bramston  v.  Colchester,  5  Louisville  Water  Co.  v.  Clark. 

6  E.  &  B.  246;  Evansville  v.  Bay-  143  U.  S.  1,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  346,  :!6  L. 

ard,  39  Ind.  450;  Willing  v.  Boz-  Ed.  55;  State  v.  Swanson,  85  Minn, 

man,  52  Md.  4.4.  112,  88  N.  W.  416. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    A.0T8. 

1  acte.'  An  net  provided  that  a  president  of  each  <m>/ 
every  village  and  incorporated  town  should  be  elected  annu- 
ally. The  Language  was  held  to  show  an  intent  to  repeal 
the  special  charter  provisions  of  such  municipalities  as  were 
inconsistent.7  A  general  statute  provided  that  the  real  es- 
tate of  every  educational,  benevolent  and  ecclesiastical  cor- 
poration or  association,  which  is  leased  or  used  for  other 
purposes  than  the  specific  purposes  of  such  corporation  or 
at  ion,  should  be  subject  to  taxation  as  if  held  by  an 
individual  taxpayer.  This  was  held  to  repeal  an  exemption 
in  the  charter  of  a  theological  institution.8  Other  cases  are 
to  the  same  etTect.9 

A  general  act  prescribing  a  mode  of  punishment  for  a 
specific  offense  throughout  the  state  will  repeal  an  act  limited 
single  county  prescribing  a  different  punishment.10  A 
general  statute  for  the  suppression  of  prostitution  is  incon- 
sistent with  a  local  statute  authorizing  a  regulation  of  it.11 
A  local  or  special  law  which  adopts,  by  reference,  provisions 
relating  to  procedure  from  an  existing  general  statute,  is 
not  necessarily  abrogated  or  affected  by  the  subsequent 
repeal  of  the  act  containing  the  adopted  provisions.12 

,'  277.  Illustrations  —  Local  and  special  acts  held  to  be 
repealed  by  general  acts. —  A  general  law  authorizing  coun- 
ties to  issue  bonds  to  build  roads  and  bridges  was  held  to 
repeal  a  special  law  forbidding  a  particular  county  to  issue 
bonds  except  for  the  purpose  of  refunding  its  indebtedness.13 

*  Commonwealth     v.     Summer-  Atl.  297.  19  Am.  St.  Rep.  013;  Wahl 

villa,  204  Pa.  St.  300,54  Atl.  27.  v.  Nauvoo.  04  I1L  App.  17;  Matter 

TMcCormick   v.   People,  139  111.  of  Dobeon,  140  N.  Y.  357,  40  N.  E. 

499,  2s  X.  K.  UOft  988;  State  v.  Angel,  71  N.  H.  224, 

8  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Theolog-  51  Atl.  905. 

]'  -al  Seminary,  66  Conn.  475,  34  AtL         l0Nusser   v.   Commonwealth,  25 

Pa   St.    126;    Keller  v.   Common- 

9  In  re  House  Resolution,  12  Cola     wealth,  71  id.  413. 

I    Paa  484;  Hunt  v.  Card,  94  "State  v.  Lewis,  5  Mo.  App.  465. 

56,47  Atl.  921:  Quinn  v.  Cum-  i'-'Sehwenke   v.   Union  Depot  & 

herland  County,  162  Pa.  St.  55,  29  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Colo.  512,  5  Pac.  816. 

Ati.  289;  Wagner  Free  Institute  v.  u  State  v.  WestDuluth  LandCo.r 

Philadelphia,   183  Pa.   St.   612,  19  75  Minn.  456,  71  N.  W.  115. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  535 

An  act  requiring  county  warrants  on  funds  of  the  current 
year  to  be  paid  out  of  such  funds  in  preference  to  warrants 
issued  in  former  years,  repeals  an  act  requiring  the  treasurer 
of  a  specified  county  to  pay  warrants  in  their  numerical 
order  on  presentation.14  A  local  act  providing  that  the 
western  boundary  of  Wilkes-Barre  should  be  the  low-water 
mark  of  the  Susquehanna  river,  was  held  to  be  repealed  by 
a  general  act  providing  that  where  any  township,  borough 
or  city  is  bounded  by  the  nearest  margin  of  any  navigable 
stream,  and  the  opposite  township,  borough  or  city  is  also 
bounded  by  the  nearest  margin  of  the  same  stream,  then  the 
middle  of  the  stream  should  be  the  boundary  between  them.15 
A  statute  providing  for  a  particular  class  of  local  improve- 
ments was  held  to  be  repealed  by  a  subsequent  statute  pro- 
viding for  all  kinds  of  local  improvements  and  containing 
inconsistent  provisions.16  A  statute  authorizing  the  sheriff 
to  bind  the  county  for  the  support  of  prisoners,  was  held  to 
be  repealed  by  a  law  which  provided  that  no  county  officer, 
except  the  board  of  county  commissioners,  should  contract 
for  the  payment  or  expenditure  of  any  county  moneys  for 
any  purpose  whatever,  or  purchase  or  contract  for  any  goods, 
wares  or  merchandise,  labor  or  services,  without  authoritv 
from  the  board.17 

§  278.  Illustrations  — Local  and  special  acts  held  not 
to  be  repealed  by  general  acts.— An  act  prescribing  a  form 
of  ballot  in  a  particular  case,  as  in  elections  for  the  organiza- 

"  Cooper  v.  Wait,  106  Ky.  628,  51  98  Mo.  675,  11  S.  W.  743;  Pleasant 

S.  W.  161.  Hill  v.  Dasher,  120  Mo.  675,  25  S.  W. 

15  Gilchrist  v.  Strong,  167  Pa.  St.  566;  State  v.  Davis,  129  N.  C.  570, 

628,  31  Atl.  931.  40  S.  E.  112;  Felts  v.  Delaware,  L.' 

i«  People  v.  Nelson,  156  111.  364,  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  432,  33 

40  N.  E.  957.  Atl.  97;  S.  G,  178  Pa.  St.  290,'  35 

17  State v.Washoe County  Com'rs,  Atl.  983:  Felts  v.  Delaware,  L.  & 
22  Nev.  203,  37  Pac.  486.  The  fob  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  195  Pa.  St.  21,  45 
lowingadclitionalcasesarereferred  Atl.  493;  Commonwealth  v.  Black- 
to:  Spruance  v.  Truax,  9  Houst.  129,  ley,  198  Pa.  St.  372,  47  Atl.  1104; 
31  Atl.  589;  Starbird  v.  Brown,  84  State  v.  Butcher,  93  Tenn.  679,  28 
Me.  238,  24  Atl.  824;  Pool  v.  Brown,  S.  W.  296. 


REPEALS    AM>    REPEALING   ACTS. 

tion  of  villages,  for  the  establishment  of  a  high  school  dis- 
trict, for  the  issue  of  bonds  by  a  county,  and  the  like,  is  not 
repealed  by  a  subsequent  general  ballot  Law  which  pre- 
scribes a  form  of  ballot  for  the  various  sorts  of  elections.18 
A  provision  in  a  special  charter  authorizing  a  municipality 
to  regulate  or  prohibit  the  sale  of  liquor  is  not  repealed  by 
a  subsequent  general  law  on  the  subject.19  A  special  act 
granted  to  a  cemetery  association  capacity  to  acquire  lands 
in  a  village  named  for  a  public  purpose;  by  the  terms  of 
the  act  the  land  so  acquired  was  not  liable  to  be  taken 
for  road  purposes.  An  act  was  subsequently  passed  con- 
ferring general  power  to  lay  out  and  vacate  roads  and 
streets  in  cities  and  villages  within  their  corporate  limits. 
ft  was  held  that  the  two  acts  might  stand  together.  Under 
the  general  law  all  roads  and  streets  in  the  village  are  under 
its  control  except  the  lands  of  the  association,  and  as  to 
these  the  association  has  the  exclusive  control.20 

In  the  following  cases  the  general  and  special  laws  are 
stated  and  in  each  case  the  general  was  held  not  to  repeal 
the  special,  local  or  particular  "law:  A  particular  statute 
giving  the  sheriff  the  custody  and  care  of  the  court-house 
and  jail  in  his  county  and  a  general  law  that  the  county 
board  shall  have  the  care  and  custody  of  all  the  real  and 
personal  estate  owned  by  the  county;21  a  local  act  fixing 
the  pay  of  the  county  auditors  of  Fayette  county  at  three 
dollars  a  day  without  mileage  and  a  general  act  fixing  the 
pay  of  the  county  auditors  at  three  dollars  with  mileage;22 
a  special  act  for  the  extension  of  a  certain  railroad  and  au- 

'8  People  v.  Marquis?,  192  III.  377,  quist,  77  Minn.  510,  80  N.  W.  701; 

til  X.  K.  852;  Rankin  v.  Cowden,  60  Murdock's  Petition,  149  Pa.  St.  341, 

111.  App  137;  Tinkel  v.  GrifTen,  26  24  At  I.  222. 

Mont.   126,  88   1. 1".  859;   Matter  of  -°  Village  of  Hyde  Park  v.  Ceme- 
r,  3  A],]).  Div.  244,  88  N.  Y.  S.  tery   Ass'n,  119  111.  141,  7  N.  E.  627. 
348;  People  v.  Utah  Com'rs,  7  Utah,  2I  McDonnough  County  v.  Thorn- 
ier. 577.  as,  84  III.  App.  408. 
UShea  v.  Muncie,  148  Ind.  14,  46  '-'-'  Morrison  v.  Fayette  County,  127 
State  v.  Labatut,  89  La.  Pa.  St.  110,  17  Atl.  733. 
Ann.  313,  2  So.  530;  State  v.  Lind- 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  537 

thorizing  it  to  charge  four  cents  a  mile  and  a  general  law 
for  the  regulation  of  railroad  fares;-3  a  charter  provision 
giving  the  mayor  and  council  the  power  to  remove  and  sus- 
pend officers  and  a  general  law  providing  that  any  officer 
guilty  of  misconduct  in  office  shall  forfeit  his  office  and  be 
removed  therefrom,  and  providing  for  a  hearing  in  court  and 
a  judgment  determining  the  forfeiture  and  ordering  the  re- 
moval;24 a  special  charter  provision  that  the  village  trustees 
shall  be  ex  officio  school  trustees  and  a  general  law  allow- 
ing women  to  vote  for  school  trustees  and  to  be  elected  to 
that  office;25  a  special  act  detaching  certain  territory  from 
one  county  and  adding  it  to  another,  which  required  the  ap- 
proval of  the  voters  of  the  latter  county,  and  a  general  law 
that  such  a  thing  should  not  be  done  unless  the  question  was 
submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  voters  of  both  counties; 26 
an  act  regulating  costs  in  actions  for  assault  and  battery  and 
a  general  law  as  to  costs;27  an  act  regulating  appeals  in 
condemnation  cases  and  a  general  law  as  to  appeals;28  a 
special  law  authorizing  a  particular  county  to  levy  a  tax  to 
build  a  bridge  and  a  general  law  limiting  the  rate  of  taxa- 
tion by  counties;29  a  law  fixing  the  salary  of  county  audit- 
ors in  counties  of  over  150,000  inhabitants  at  five  hundred 
dollars  a  year  and  a  later  law  that  the  county  auditors  of 
each  county  should  receive  three  dollars  a  day  and  mile- 
age;30 a  special  provision  that  notice  of  appeal   may   be 
served  on  the  adverse  party  or  his  attorney  and  a  general 
law  that,  in  all  cases  where  a  party  has  an  attorney,  the 
service  of  papers  shall  be  on  the  attorney  instead  of  the 
party.31 

23  Parker  v.  Elmira,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Seattle    &    Mont.    Ry.    Co.   v. 
165  N.  Y.  274.  59  N.  E.  81.  O'Meara,  4  Wash.  17.  29  Pac.  835. 

24  State  v.  Wal  bridge,  119  Mo.  383,  29  Barnett  v.  Maloney.  97  Tenn. 
24  S.  W.  457,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  663.  697,  37  S.  W.  689,  34  L.  R.  A.  541. 

25Trautman  v.  McLeod,  74  Minn.  ^Rymer  v.  Luzerne  County,  142 

110.  76  N.  W.  964.  pa.  St.  108,  21  Atl.  794,  12  L.  R.  A. 

2t>  State  v.  Archibald,  43  Minn. 328,  192. 

45  N.  W.  606.  31  Mantle  v.  Largey,  15  Mont.  116. 

27  Meade  v.  French,  4  Wash.  11,  29  41  Pac.  1077.     The  following  addi- 

Pac.  833.  tional  cases  are  referred  to:  Mills 


US    AM'    III  l'l    U.1NG    ACTS. 


It  is  held  in  Pennsylvania  that  a  Bpecial  act  relating  to  a 
particular  oity  or  county  is  not  repealed  by  a  subsequent 

.  general  in  form,  which  applies  to  a  class  of  cities  or 
counties,  though  such  particular  city  or  county  may  bo  the 
only  one  of  the  class  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  gen- 
eral lav. 

279.  Effect  of  constitutional  provisions  requiring 
genera]  laws  and  laws  of  uniform  operation  upon  repeal 
of  special  by  general  laws. —  Where  the  constitution  re- 
quires uniformity  in  respect  to  any  matter  or  thing,  a  law 

ssed  to  carry  out  the  provision  will  repeal  all  inconsistent 
local  ami  special  laws  on  the  subject.33  Thus  the  constitu- 
tion of  Kentucky  requires  that  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of 
the  peace  shall  be  equal  and  uniform  throughout  the  state. 
A  law  passed  in  conformity  with  this  provision  was  held  to 
repeal  all  inconsistent  special  legislation.34  The  supreme 
court  of  Pennsylvania  says:  "Ordinarily  it  is  true  that  a 

v.  Sanderson,  68  Ark.  180,  5G  S.  W.  But  there  is  noevidence  hereof  an 

People  v.  Knopf,  1SG  111.  457,  intent  to  provide  specially  for  Alle- 

57  N.  1..  1059;  Kelly  v. School  Direct-  gheny  county  by  the  thirteenth  seo 

ors,  66  til.  App.  L34;   Boyd   v.  Ran-  tion.     The   act   is   an   attempt,  at 

dolpb,  91  Ky.  472,  16  S.  W.  133;  Cas-  least,  at  classification  on  the  basis 

terton  v.  Vienna,  163  N.  Y.  36S,  57  of  population,  and,  if  sustainable, 

X.  1  it  is  so,  ami  only  so,  because  other 

32  Bell  v.  Allegheny  County,  149  counties  may  come  into  the  several 

Pa.  St.  381, 24  Atl.  209;  Safe  Deposit  classes    provided     for.      Hence    it 

&  T.  Co.  v.  Fricke.  152  Pa.  St.  231,  must  not  be  assumed  to  have  been 

25  Atl.  530.     In  the  first  of  these  enacted  for  the  then  present  and 

case>  the  court  says:  "To  say  that  with  reference  to  certain  counties, 

the  county  of  Allegheny  was  the  thenamesof  which  werecunningly 

only  county  to  which  the  thirteenth  suppressed,  but  for  all  time  and 

tion  could  apply,  and  that  there-  with     reference    to     the     future 

for-                   ature  had  that  county  changes  of  population." 

in   mind,  and   trained  the  section  a3  McTigue  v.  Commonwealth.  99 

daily  in  reference  to  it,  proves  Ky.   GO,   35  S.   W.    121;    Common- 

much.     Whenever  the  intent  is  wealth   v.  Wunch,  1G7  Pa.  St.  186, 

to  legislate  for  a  particular  county  31  Atl.  551;  Chalfant  v.  Edwards, 

the    resultant    legislation    contra-  176  Pa.  St.  67,  34  Atl.  922, 

article  3  of  the  "McTigue  v.  Commonwealth,  99 

no  matter  how  rare-  Ky.  66,  35  S.  \V.  121. 
fully  that  intent  may  be  disguised. 


REPEALS    AND    EEPEALING    ACTS.  539 

general  law  will  not  operate  to  repeal  a  previous  local  act 
without  some  words  indicative  of  such  an  intention.  But 
when  it  is  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  change,  an  existing 
system  because  of  some  constitutional  provision  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  a  law  is  passed  for  this  purpose  introducing  a  new 
system  which  is  general  in  its  terms  and  evidently  intended 
to  provide  a  uniform  system  for  all  subjects  to  which  it  re- 
lates, no  repealing  words  are  necessary."35 

So  where  the  constitution  requires  a  change  of  system,  as 
that  certain  officers  shall  be  compensated  by  salaries  instead 
of  fees,  and  a  law  is  passed  in  obedience  to  the  constitutional 
mandate.36 

The  constitution  of  New  Jersey  forbids  special  legislation 
for  certain  purposes  and  requires  that  such  purposes  shall 
be  provided  for  by  general  laws.  "  In  order  to  give  effect 
to  the  manifest  design  of  this  constitutional  provision," 
says  the  court  of  errors  and  appeals,  "general  statutes 
passed  in  pursuance  thereof  should  be  deemed  to  repeal  all 
inconsistent  rules  in  special  charters,  whether  an  express 
repeal  be  stated  or  not;  for  if  this  force  be  not  ascribed  to 
them,  the  generality  of  the  statutes  will  be  defeated  by 
their  being  confined  to  narrower  limits  than  an  entire  class, 
and  thus,  by  judicial  interpretation,  the  statutes  will  be- 
come unconstitutional." 37 

The  requirement  that  laws  of  a  general  nature  shall  have 
a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state  is  held  to  impart 
to  such  laws  the  effect  of  repealing  inconsistent  local  and 
special  laws.38    But  in  Kentucky  it  is  held  that  the  passage 

35Chalfant   v.  Edwards,  176  Pa.  L.  180,  182,  19  Atl.  176.     See  also 

St.  67,  71,  34  Atl.  922.  Bowyer  v.  Camden,  50  N.  J.  L.  87, 

36  McCleary  v.  Allegheny  County,  11  Atl.  137;  Hoetzel  v.  East  Orange, 
163  Pa.  St.  578,  30  Atl.  120;  Boun-  50  N.  J.  L.  354,  12  Atl.  911;  Crook- 
horst  v.  Allegheny  County,  163  Pa.  all  v.  Matthews,  61  N.  J.  L.  349,  39 
, St.  588,  30  Atl.  123;  McGunnegle  v.  Atl.  659;  Commonwealth  v.  Mac- 
Allegheny  County,  163  Pa.  St.  589,  ferron,  152  Pa.  St.  244,  25  Atl.  556; 
30  Atl.  123;  Commonwealth  v.  Quinn  v.  Cumberland  County,  162 
Grier,  152  Pa.  St.  170,  25  Atl.  624.  Pa.  St.  55,  29  Atl.  289. 

37  Haynes  v.  Cape  May,  52  N.  J.  3«  Miller  v.  Curry,  113  Cal.  644,  45 


REPEALS    ami    REPEALING    ACTS. 

of  a  general  law  on  a  subject  as  to  which  special  legislation 
is  prohibited  and  general  laws  required  does  not  necessa- 
rily repeai  all  special  laws  on  the  subject,  and  that  it  is  still 
a  question  of  legislative  intent.39  The  constitution  of  Mis- 
souri requires  the  general  assembly,  by  general  law,  to  des- 
ignate the  court  or  judge  bjT  whom  the  several  classes  of 
election  contests  shall  be  tried,  and  to  regulate  the  manner 
of   trial.     In    accordance    with   this    provision    a  law   was 

.1  providing  that  the  several  circuit  courts  should  have 
jurisdiction  in  cases  of  contested  elections  for  count}'  offi- 
cers. This  was  held  not  to  repeal  a  provision  in  a  prior 
special  act  "establishing  the  office  of  marshal  of  Jackson 
county  and  defining  his  duties  and  powers,"  which  conferred 

liction  on  the  criminal  court  of  that  county  to  hear 
contested  elections  for  said  office.40  The  court,  sitting  in 
bank,  says:  "The  provision  for  a  general  law  was  not 
intended  to  repeal  special  local  acts  then  in  existence.  Un- 
questionably it  was  and  is  the  design  of  the  constitution  to 
rid  the  state  of  the  evil  of  a  multitude  of  local  and  special 
laws  and  to  adopt  general  laws  whenever  it  is  feasible,  but 
general  subsequent  laws  have  not  heretofore  been  construed 

pealing  the  various  special  laws  and  charters  of  this 
state  unless  appropriate  language  has  been  used  for  that 
purpose." 

;  280  (160).  What  is  the  later  law  which  is  potent  to 
repeal. —  If  a  conflict  exists  between  two  statutes  or  pro- 
visions, the  earlier  in  enactment  or  position  is  repealed  by 
the  later.41     Leges  posterioris  jyriores  contr arias  abrogant. 

Pan.  877;    Howard   v.   Hulbert,  G3  vision  of  the  constitution,  and  in- 

Kan.  793,  00  Pac.  1011.  88   Am.  St.  tended  it  to  have  such  general  ap. 

J67.     In   the  latter   case  the  plication,  and  intended  thereby  to 

court    says    that   "we    think    the  substitute  it  for  all  prior  laws,  spe- 

court  ought  to  assniiK',  at  least  in  cial  as  well  as  general."     p.  707. 

the  absence  of  inherent  evidence  39  Pearce  v.  Mason  County,  99  Ky. 

■   contrary,   that  the  legisla-  857,85  8.  W.  1122. 

ture,  in  enacting  a  general  law  pur-  40  State  v.  Slover,  134  Mo.  10,  31 

porting  to   be  of  general   applica-  S.  W.  1054.  34  S.  W.  1102. 

tiou,  did  so  in   view   of  this  pro-  41  Ante,  §  247;  Davis  v.  Whiddea, 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  541 

Where  there  is  an  irreconcilable  conflict  between  different 
sections  or  parts  of  the  same  statute  the  last  words  stand, 
and  those  which  are  in  conflict  with  them,  so  far  as  there  is 
a  conflict,  are  repealed ; 42  that  is,  the  part  of  a  statute  later 
in  position  in  the  same  act  or  section  is  deemed  later  in 
time,  and  prevails  over  repugnant  parts  occurring  before, 
though  enacted  and  to  take  effect  at  the  same  time.43  This 
rule  is  applicable  where  no  reasonable  construction  will 
harmonize  the  parts.  It  is  presumed  that  each  part  of  a 
statute  is  intended  to  co-act  with  every  other  part;  that  no 
part  is  intended  to  antagonize  the  general  purpose  of  the 
enactment.  To  ascertain  the  legislative  intent  every  part 
of  an  act,  and  other  acts  in  pari  materia,  are  to  be  con- 
sidered. One  part  of  an  act  may  restrict  another  part  — 
an  early  section  a  later,  and  vice  versa;  but  if  one  part  is  so 
out  of  line  with  other  parts  and  the  general  purpose  of  the 
act  that  it  can  only  operate  by  wholly  neutralizing  some 
other  part,  then  the  latter  provision  is  supreme  as  express- 
ing: the  latest  will  of  the  lawmaker.  Hence,  it  is  a  rule 
that  where  the  proviso  of  an  act  is  directly  repugnant  to 
the  purview  the  latter  is  repealed  by  it.44  Statutes  speak 
from  the  time  they  take  effect,  and  from  that  time  they 
have  posteriority.45  If  passed  to  take  effect  at  a  future  day, 
they  are  to  be  construed,  as  a  general  rule,  as  if  passed  on 
that  day  and  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect.46     But,  as 

117  Cal.  618,  49  Pac.  766;  State  v.  v.    Brittenum,  56  Miss.   232.     See 

Halliday,  63  Ohio  St.  165,  57  N.  E.  Thomas  v.  Collins,  58  Mich.  64,  24 

1097;  Aldrich  v.  Columbia  Ry.  Co.,  N.  W.  553. 

39  Ore.  263,  64  Pac.  455.  44  Attorney-General    v.    Chelsea 

«Albertson  v.  State,  9  Neb.  429.  Water    Works    Co.,    Fitzgib.    195; 

«  Ante,  §  268;  Bac.  Abr.,  tit.  Stat-  Farmers'  Bank  v.  Hale,  59  N.  Y.  53. 

utes,   D. ;   State   v.   Davis,  70  Md.  45  Ante,  §  175 ;  State  v.  Edwards, 

237;    Harrington   v.   Rochester,  10  130  Mo.  360,  38  S.  W.  73. 

Wend.  550;  Branagan  v.  Dulaney,  46  Rice  v.  Ruddiman,10  Mich.  125; 

8  Colo.  408;  Powers  v.   Barney,  5  Harrington   v.    Harrington's  Est., 

Blatchf.  202,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,361;  53  Vt.   649;    Metropolitan   Bd.    of 

Southwark     Bank     v.     Common-  Health  v.  Schmades,  10  Abb.  Pr. 

wealth,  26  Pa.  St.  446,  449;  Elliott  (N.  S.)205. 
v.  Lochnane,  1  Kan.  135;  Gibbons 


542 


REP]  Al>    A.\p    REPEALING    ACTS. 


between  two  arts,  it  has  been  held  that  one  passed  later 
and  going  into  effect  earlier  will  prevail  over  one  passed 
earlier  and  going  into  eil'eet  later.  Thus  an  act  passed 
April  16th  and  in  force  April  21st  was  held  to  prevail  over 
an  act  passed  April  9th  and  in  eil'eet  July  4th  of  the  same 
year.41  And  an  act  uoing  into  effect  immediately  has  been 
held  to  prevail  over  an  act  passed  before  but  going  into 
later.48  Where  two  acts  come  into  operation  on  the 
same  day,  and  are  repugnant,  the  one  last  approved  repeals 
the  other,1'  unless  a  different  intention  is  expressed.50  The 
relative  time  of  approval  may  be  ascertained  from  testi- 
mony,51 and,  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  on  the  ques- 


47  Dewey  v.  Des  Moines,  101  Iowa, 
416, 7 0  N.  AN',  i SI 15.  And  see  to  same 
effect,  Dowty  v.  Pitwood,  23  Mont. 
113,  57  Pac.  727;  State  v.  Newark, 
57  N.  J.  L.298,  30  Atl.  543. 

4"  Belding   Land  &   Imp.  Co.  v. 

Belding,  128  .Mich.  79,87  N.  W.  113; 

Board  of  Education  v.  Tafoya,  6  N. 

.   Pac.  616;  Heilig  v.  Puy- 

allup.  T   Wash.  29,  34  Par.  164.     In 

the   latter  case  some  stress    was 

laid  on  the  fact  that  the  act  going 

into  immediate  effect  was  passed 

with  an  emergency  clause.     Says 

the  court:    "But   we  are  also  of 

opinion  that  where  two  conflicting 

acts  upon  the  same  subject-matter 

are  passed  at  the  same  session  of 

the  legislature,  and  their  conflict 

is  Bucb  that  they  cannot  be  bar- 

i/.ed  and  stand  together,  and 

one  of  them    contains  an    emer- 

y  clause  and  the  other  does 

not,  that  one  containing  the  emer- 

must   be    taken   to 

overcome  the  other.     The  simple 

fact  of  there  being  an  emergency 

ise  would  tend  to  show  that  the 

ect-matter  of  th<-  act  was  more 

rly  and  pointedly    before  the 


legislature  than  the  subject-matter 
of  the  other  act." 

*9  State  v.  Davis,  70  Md.  237,  16 
Atl.  529;  Socorro  County  Com'rs  v. 
Leavitt,  4  N.  M.  37,  12  Pac.  759; 
Bailey  v.  Drane,  96  Tenn.  16,  33  S. 
W.  573;  Rex  v.  Middlesex,  2  B.  & 
Ad.  818. 

50  The  Southwark  Bank  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 26  Pa.  St.  446.  In  this 
case  it  appeared  that  the  legisla- 
ture repealed  a  part  of  a  bdl  pend- 
ing before  the  governor,  and  he 
approved  the  repealing  statute. 
Held,  that  he  had  no  power  to  re- 
instate the  repealed  provision  by 
subsequently  signing  the  act  in 
which  it  was  contained. 

81  Straus  v.  Heiss,  48  Md.  292; 
Gardner  v.  Collector,  6  Wall.  499, 
18  L.  Ed.  890.  In  Mead  v.  Bagnall, 
15  Wis.  156,  it  was  held  that  when 
the  legislative  intent  is  to  be  in- 
ferred from  the  priority  of  one  act 
to  another,  regard  must  be  had  to 
the  dates  of  approval  of  the  acts 
and  not  to  their  dates  of  publica- 
tion. The  court  say:  "It  is  true 
that  general  laws  must  be  pub- 
lished before  they  can  take  effect, 


EEPEALS   AND    REPEALING   ACTS.  543 

tion,  they  will  be  presumed  to  have  been  approved  in  nu- 
merical order.52 

The  legislature  of  Washington  passed  an  act  in  regard  to 
death  warrants  and  their  execution  which  repealed  the  old 
law  on  the  subject  and  was  to  go  into  effect  on  June  12, 
1901.  On  that  day  the  legislature  in  special  session  passed 
an  act  repealing  the  act  referred  to  and  provided  that  it 
should  go  into  effect  immediately  "  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting the  act  hereby  repealed  from  ever  becoming  oper- 
ative for  any  purpose."  It  was  held  that  the  repealing  act 
was  in  effect  from  the  first  moment  of  June  12th,  that  the 
act  repealed  was  never  in  force,  and  consequently  that  the 
old  law  in  regard  to  death  warrants  remained  in  force.53 

§  281  (161).  Effect  where  different  statutes  are  incor- 
porated into  a  revision. —  Where  two  statutes  in  pari  ma- 
teria, originally  enacted  at  different  periods  of  time,  are 
subsequently  incorporated  in  a  revision  and  re-enacted  in 
substantially  the  same  language,  with  the  design  to  accom- 
plish the  purpose  they  were  originally  intended  to  produce, 
the  times  when  they  first  took  effect  will  be  ascertained  by 
the  courts,  and  effect  will  be  given  to  that  which  was  the 
latest  declaration  of  the  will  of  the  legislature,  if  they  are 
not  harmonious.54    An  existing  statute  is  not  to  be  consid- 

but  that  floes  not  make  the  printer  53In  re  Boyce,  25  Wash.  612,  66 

a  part  of  the  law-making  power,  Pac.  54.     See  also  to  same  effect, 

nor  enable   him,  by  delaying  the  Turnipseed  v.  Jones,  101  Ala.  593, 

publication  of  one  law  longer  than  14  So.  377. 

that  of  another  which  was  passed  64  Winn  v.  Jones,   6  Leigh,   74; 

at  the  same  time,  to  change  the  Blackford  v.  Hurst,  26  Gratt.  206; 

relations  of  the  two  upon  the  point  Hurley  v.  Town  of  Texas,  20  Wis. 

of  priority."  638;  United  States  v.  Bowen,  100 

62 Straus    v.   Heiss,  48  Md.   292;  U.  S.  508,  25  L.  Ed.  631;  Vietor  v. 

Metropolitan    Board   of  Health  v.  Arthur,  104  U.S.  498,  26  L.  Ed.  633; 

Schmades,  10  Abb.   Pr.  (N.  S.)  205.  Mobile  Savings  Bank  v.  Patty,  16 

See  Thomas  v.  Collins,  58  Mich.  64,  Fed.  751;  Lamar  v.  Allen,  108  Ga. 

24    N.    W.    553;    Socorro    County  158,  33  S.  E.   958;  Commonwealth 

Com'rs  v.  Leavitt,  4  N.   M.  37,  12  v.  Railroad  Companies,  95  Ky.  60, 

Pac.  759;  ante,  §180;  State  v.  Davis,  23  S.  W.  868;  Mette  v.  Feltgen,  148 

70  Md.  237,  10  At).  529.  111.  357,  36  N.  E.  81;  Lyon  v.  Ogden, 


Kl  IT  A  I  8      \M>     Kl   I'l   A  LING     A.OTS. 

ered  as  original  beoause  it  is  embodied  in  a  revision,  and 
therefore  is  not  to  be  construed  on  the  theory  that  none  of 
its  provisions  had  been  in  effect  prior  thereto.  The  appear- 
ance of  such  a  statute  in  the  form  and  body  of  a  revision 
has  no  other  effect  than  to  continue  it  in  force.55  Where  a 
revision  was  made  in  part  by  the  mere  compilation  of  prior 
.statutes  not  re-enacted  and  in  part  fo  statutes  compiled  and 
re-enacted,  it  was  held  that  a  re-enacted  section,  of  earlier 
origin,  would  prevail  over  a  section  of  later  origin  not  re- 
enacted.'"1 

282  (162).  Effect  of  repeal  in  general.— The  general 
rule  is  that  when  an  act  of  the  legislature  is  repealed  with- 
out a  saving  clause,  it  is  considered,  except  as  to  transac- 
tions past  and  closed,  as  though  it  had  never  existed.57  This 
is  not  true  in  an  absolute  sense,  nor  without  exception,  un- 
less it  is  provided  that  the  repealed  statute  cannot  be  re- 
vived by  the  repeal  of  the  repealing  statute.  A  repealed 
law  is  indefinitely  suspended  while  the  repealing  statute  is 
in  force.  When  that  statute  is  repealed  its  repealing  force 
is  spent,  and  the  one  which  is  repealed  thereupon  comes 
ngain  into  operation.58  This  revival  would  not  ensue  if  the 
repeal  had  the  effect  of  absolute  extinguishment.59  In  the 
interpretation  of  statutes,  clauses  which  have  been  repealed 
may  still  be  considered  in  construing  the  provisions  that 
remain  in  force.60     Where  a  doubt  exists  as  to  the  meaning 

Me    374.  27   Atl.    258;    Pool   v.  bama  Med.  College  v.  Muldon,  46 

Brown,  98  Mo.  075,  11  S.  W.  748.  Ala.   603;  Musgrove  v.  Vicksburg, 

s*  City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Alexander,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Miss.   677;   Mc- 

!o.  509;  City  of  Cape  Girardeau  Quilkien  v.  Doe  ex  dem.  Stoddard. 

v.  Riley, 52  id.  428.  14  Am.  Rep.  427;  8  Blackf.  581;  Hunt  v.  Jennings,  5 

Stute  ex  rel.  Atfy-Gen'l  v.  Heidorn,  id.  195;  Potter's  Dwarris,  100. 

74  Mo.  410.     See  ante,  §  238.  58  Post,  §  288;  Bac.  Abr.,  tit.  Stat- 

:  v>on  v.  Johnson  County,  100  ute,  D.;  Phillips  v.  Hopwood,  10  B. 

Mo.  70,  13  S.  W.  -'::'.'.  &  C.  39;  Brinkley  v.  Swicegood,  65 

'■llolcomb   v.  Boynton,  151  111.  N.  C.  626;  Smith  v.  Hoyt,  14  Wis. 

294.  87  N.  K.  1031,  49  111.  App.  508;  252. 

Curran   v.  Ow<  ds,   15  W.  Va.  208;  &9  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Taxing  Dist, 

ees  v.  Ellison,  9   B.  &  C.  750;  4  Lea,  644. 

tier  v.  Palmer,  1  Hill,  324;  Ala-  60  Bank  for  Savings  v.  The  Col- 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


545 


of  a  statute,  the  pre-existing  law,  and  the  reason  and  pur- 
pose of  the  new  enactment,  are  considerations  of  great 
weight.61  It  is  more  accurate  to  say  that  after  it  is  repealed 
it  is,  as  regards  its  operative  effect,  considered  as  if  it  had 
never  existed,  except  as  to  matters  and  transactions  past 
and  closed.62  The  repeal  of  an  exception  extends  the  pur- 
view.63 

§  283  (163).  Effect  on  inchoate  rights.— Eights  depend- 
ing on  a  statute  and  still  inchoate,  not  perfected  by  final 
judgment  or  reduced  to  possession,  are  lost  by  repeal  or 
expiration  of  the  statute.64  This  rule  applies  to  mechanics 
liens  given  by  statute  where  the  requisite  proceedings  tc 
fix  the  lien  have  not  been  completed  at  the  date  of  the  re- 


lector,  3  Wall.  495,  18  L.  Ed.  207; 
Crow  Dog,  Ex  parte,  109  U.  S.  556, 
3  S.  C.  Rep.  396,  27  L.  Ed.  1030;  Bates 
v.  Clark,  95  U.  S.  204,  24  L.  Ed.  471; 
Attorney-General  v.  Lamplough,  L. 
R.  3  Ex.  D.  223;  Commonwealth  v. 
Bailey,  13  Allen,  541;  Flanders  v. 
Merrimack,  48  Wis.  567;  Whitcomb 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  153  Ind.  513,  55 
N.  E.  440. 

61  Smythe  v.  Fiske,  23  Wall.  374, 
B80,  23  L.  Ed.  47;  Heydon's  Case,  3 
Rep.  lb. 

62  Attorney-General  v.  Lamp- 
lough,  L.  R.  3  Ex.  Div.  223. 

63  Smith  v.  Hoyt,  14  Wis.  252; 
Goodno  v.  Oshkosh,  31  id.  127; 
Bank  for  Savings  v.  The  Collector, 
3  Wall.  495,  18  L.  Ed.  207. 

64Becbtol  v.  Cobaugh,  10  S.  &  R. 
121;  Van  Inwagen  v.  Chicago,  61 
111.  31;  Town  of  Belvidere  v.  War- 
ren R.  R.  Co.,  34  N.  J.  L.  193;  S.  C, 
35  id.  587;  Musgrove  v.  Vicksburg, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Miss.  677;  People 
v.  Livingston,  6  Wend.  526;  Tivey 
v.  People,  8  Mich.  128;  Knox  v. 
Baldwin,  80  N.  Y.  610;  Hampton  v. 
Commonwealth,  19  Pa.  St.  329; 
35 


State  v.    Baldwin,   45  Conn.   134, 
Bay  City,  etc.  R,  R.  Co.  v.  Austin, 
21  Mich.  390;   Bennet  v.  Hargus,  I 
Neb.  419;  Williams  v.   Middlesex, 
4  Met.  76;  Oriental  Bank  v.  Freese 
18  Me.  109,  36  Am.  Dec.  701;  Bailej 
v.  Mason,  4  Minn.  546;  The  Schoonei 
Rachel  v.  United  States,  6  Cr.  329,  b 
L.  Ed.  239;  Coffin  v.  Rich,  45  Me.  507, 
71  Am.  Dec.  559:  Gregory  v.  German 
Bank,  3  Colo.  332,  25  Am.  Rep.  760; 
Gaul  v.  Brown,  53  Me.  496;  Curtis  v. 
Leavitt,  15  N.  Y.  152;   Turnipseed 
v.  Jones,  101  Ala.  593,  14  S.  E.  377; 
Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16  Colo.  471, 
27  Pac.  1055;  Miller  v.  Hageman,' 
111   Iowa,  195,   86  N.  W.  281;   Na- 
tions v.  Lovejoy,  80  Miss.  401,  31 
So.   811;   Wirt    v.   Supervisors,   90 
Hun,  205,  35  N.  Y.  S.  887;  Detroit  v. 
Chapin,  108  Mich.  136,  66  N.  W.  587, 
37  L.  R.  A.  391;  Lawrence  County 
v.  New  Castle,  18  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  313. 
See  Restall  v.  London,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
L.  R.  3  Ex.  141,  which  is  dissented 
from  in  Butcher  v.  Henderson,  L. 
R.  3  Q.  B.  335.     See,  also,  Morgan  v. 
Thorne,  7  M.  &  W.  400. 


REPEALS    AXH    REPEALING   ACTS. 

peal."  A  sale  under  a  decree  for  a  mechanic's  lien,  made 
after  the  repeal  of  the  statute,  was  held  void,  though  the 
decree  was  entered  before  such  repeal.68  An  assessment  of 
on  corporate  stock  was  made  under  a  statute  which 
ubsequently  repealed.  The  collection  of  the  taxes  was 
ated  by  another  law.  The  repeal  of  the  statute  under 
which  the  assessment  had  been  made  was  not  held  to  affect 
it.  The  assessment  was  closed  and  ended,  and  therefore 
not  subject  to  the  rule  applicable  to  pending  proceedings 
when  thejaw  under  which  they  were  commenced  has  been 
led.67  There  was  a  sentence  of  condemnation  of  a  ves- 
sel for  trading  contrary  to  a  temporary  act  of  congress;  the 
vessel  had  been  sold  and  the  proceeds  paid  over  to  the 
government  while  the  law  was  in  force.  Pending  an  ap- 
peal from  the  sentence  the  act  expired.  It  was  held  that 
the  sentence  could  not,  under  such  circumstances,  be  affirmed 
after  the  expiration  of  the  law,  and  restitution  was  ordered.63 
An  informer  who  commences  a  qui  tain  action  under  a 
penal  statute  does  not  thereby  acquire  a  vested  right  to  the 
forfeiture;  his  claim  to  the  penalty  is  inchoate,  and  cannot 
be  fixed  except  by  judgment.  The  repeal  of  the  statute  be- 
fore judgment  prevents  the  imperfect  right  from  being 
consummated.  It  matters  not  whether  the  whole  penalty 
when  received  is  given  to  the  public  or  the  informer,  or  is 
divided  between  them.69  The  repeal  of  a  statute  giving  a 
lien  for  taxes  destroys  the  lien.70 

§  2S4  (164).  Effect  on  vested  rights. —  When  a  right  has 
arisen  on  a  contract,  or  a  transaction  in  the  nature  of  a 
contract  authorized  by  a  statute,  and  has  been  so  far  per- 
fected that  nothing  remains  to  be  done  by  the  party  assert- 
ing such  right,  the  repeal  of  the  statute  will  not  affect  it  or 

«  Bailey  v.  Mason.  4  Minn.  546.  ton  v.  United  States,  5  Cr.  281,  3  L. 

<*Holcomb  v.    Boynton,  111   111.  Ed.  101. 

294,  ■',:  X.  E.  1031.  «9  Bank  of  St.  Marys  v.  State,  12 

b" Town  of  Belvidere   v.  "Warren  Ga.  475. 

R  R  Ca,  M  N.  J.  L.  193.  ™Gull  River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Lee, 

e  Schoonor  Rachel  v.  United  7  N.  D.  135,  73  N.  W.  430. 
States,  6  Cr.  329,  3  L.  Ed.  239;  Yea- 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  547 

an  action  for  its  enforcement.  It  has  become  a  vested  right 
which  stands  independently  of  the  statute.71  A  contractor 
for  grading  streets  was  authorized  by  the  existing  law  to 
sue  delinquent  abutters  for  unpaid  assessments.  This  right 
of  action  was  held  a  part  of  the  contract  and  not  taken 
away  by  repeal  of  the  law  creating  it.72  Causes  of  action 
barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations  are  not  revived  by  a  re- 
peal of  the  statute.73  The  repeal  of  a  statute  giving  a  lien 
for  advances  of  money  for  certain  purposes  will  not  affect 
the  lien  as  to  such  advances  as  were  made  prior  thereto.74 
Rights  that  pass  and  become  vested  under  the  existing  law 
are  supposed  to  be  beyond  the  control  of  the  state  through 
its  legislature.75  A  mere  change  of  the  law  does  not  divest 
or  impair  rights  of  property  acquired  previously,  even 
though  the  legislature  intended  the  new  law  so  to  operate.76 
A  law  can  be  repealed  by  the  law-giver;  but  the  rights 
which  have  been  acquired  under  it  while  it  was  in  force  do 
not  thereby  cease.  It  would  be  an  act  of  absolute  injustice 
to  abolish  with  a  law  all  the  effects  which  it  had  produced. 

71  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co.  v.  Wegler,  54  Minn.  235,  55  N.  W.  927; 
Joliffe,  2  Wall.  450,  17  L.  Ed.  805;  Hulbert  v.  Clark,  128  N.  Y.  295,  28 
Bibb  v.  Hall,  101  Ala.  79,  14  So.  98;  N.  E.  638.  14  L.  R.  A.  59;  Boorman 
Thompson  v.  West,  59  Neb.  677,  82  v.  Juneau  County,  76  Wis.  550,  45 
N.  W.  13,  49  L.  R.  A.  337;  Hanscom  N.  W.  675. 

v.  Meyer,  61  Neb.  798,  86  N.  W.  381 ;  74  Commissioners     v.     Northern 

Florence  Gas,  Elec.  L.  &  P.  Co.  v.  Bank,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  174. 

Hanby,  101  Ala.  15, 13  So.  343;  Beav-  "  Rice  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Black,  358, 17 

ers  v.  Myar,  68  Ark.  333,  58  S.  W.  40;  L.  Ed.  147;  Mitchell  v.  Doggett,  1 

Commonwealth  v.  Newcomb,  109  Fla.  356;  Naught  v.  Oneal,  1  111.  36; 

Ky.   18,  58   S.  W.   445;    People  v.  James  v.  Dubois,  16  N.J.  L.  285;  Den 

Common  Council,  140  N.  Y.  300,  35  v.  Robinson,  5  id.  689;  McMechen  v. 

N.  E.  485,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  563;  Ew-  Mayor,  etc.,  2  H.  &  J.  41;  Davis  v. 

ing  v.  Van  Wagenen,  6  Wash.  39,  Minor,  1  How.  (Miss.)  183,  90  Am. 

32  Pac.  1009;  State  v.  Bridges,  22  Dec.  358;    Taylor   v.    Rushing,    2 

Wash.  64,  60  Pac.  60,  79   Am.  St.  Stew.  (Ala.)  160;  Graham,  Ex  parte, 

Rep.  914.  13   Rich.  277;    Lincoln   County  v. 

72  Creighton  v.  Pragg,  21  Cal.  115.  Oneida  County,  80  Wis.  267, 50  N.  W. 

73  Cassity  v.  Storms,  1  Bush,  452;  344. 

Right  v.  Martin,  11  Ind.  123;  C<o-  76  Rock  Hill  College  v.  Jones,  47 
ley's   Const.   L.    *365;    Whitney  v.     Md.  1,  17. 


5  1  v  Ul   I'l   MS     ANH     i;i   PEALING     ACTS. 

This  is  a  prinoi pie  of  general  jurisprudence;  but  a  right  to 
be  within  its  protection  must  hu  a  vested  right.  It  must 
►mething  more  than  a  mere  expectation  based  upon  an 
anticipated  eon;  nu.-mee  of  the  existing  law.  It  must  have 
become  a  title,  legal  or  equitable,  to  the  present  or  future 
enjoyment  of  property,  or  to  the  present  or  future  enforce- 
ment of  a  demand,  or  a  legal  exemption  from  a  demand 
made  bv  another.77  If,  before  rights  become  vested  in  par- 
ticular individuals,  the  convenience  of  the  state  induces 
amendment  or  repeal  of  the  laws,  these  individuals  have  no 
cause  to  complain.78  The  legislature,  unrestrained  by  any 
constitutional  provision,  may  grant  an  exclusive  franchise,79 
but  the  grant  will  be  strictly  construed  and  must  be  clearly 
expressed.80  It  is  competent  for  the  legislature,  after  grant- 
ing to  one  person  or  a  corporation  a  franchise  which  affects 
the  rights  of  the  public,  to  grant  a  similar  franchise  to  an- 
other person  or  corporation,  though  the  use  of  the  latter 
should  impair  or  even  destroy  the  value  of  the  first  fran- 
chise; and  this  grant  does  not  depend  on  a  reservation  of 
the  power  in  the  original  grant.81  Nothing  but  plain  En- 
glish words  will  grant  an  exclusive  franchise,  and  thus  cre- 
ate a  monopoly.82  The  repeal  of  a  statute  after  judgment 
wdl  not  defeat  an  appeal  previously  taken.83     And  if  the 

"Id.;    Cool  ey.  Const.   Lim.  359;  79  Slaughter- House  Cases,  16  Wall. 

II  v.  Sherburne,  1  N.  11.  213;  36,  21  L.  Ed.  394. 

Wi  derman  v.  Baltimore,  8  Md.  551;  80  Id. 

State  v.  Warren,  28  id.  338;  Wor-  si  The  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  The 

then  v.  Ratcliffe,  42  Ark.  380;  James  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  420,  9  L.  Ed. 

v.  Dubois,  16  N.  J.  L.  285;  Graham  T7:i,   938;    Mohawk   Bridge  Co.   v. 

v.  Chicago,  etc.  R  R.  Co.,  53  Wis.  Utica,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Paige,  554; 

rey  v.  Mohile  Trade  Co.,  55  Oswego  Bridge  Co.  v.  Fish,  1  Barb. 

Ala.  887,  28  Am.  Rep.  729;  Streu-  Ch.  547;  Fort  Plain  Bridge  Co.  v. 

bel  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  12  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  44. 

Wi-.  07;   Aspinwall  v.  Daviess  Co.,  ^Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Canal 

22  How.  364,  16  L  Ed.  200;  Berinet  Commissioners,  21  Pa.  St.  22;  Rioh- 

v.  Hargus,  1  Neb.  419;  Kent's  Com.  mond  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisa  R.  R.  Co., 

455;  2  Story  on  ( lonst,  .'  1399.     See  13  How.  71,  14  L.  Ed.  55;  Chenango 

Wolfe  v.  Hender  on,  28  Ark.  304.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Binghamton  Bridge 

"-  Merrill  v.  Sherburne,  1    N.  II.  Co.,  27  N.  Y.  87. 

2 1  '■',  83  Backes  v.  Dant,  55  Ind.  181. 


REPEALS    AND   REPEALING    ACTS.  549 

statute  be  essential  to  that  judgment,  its  repeal  or  expira- 
tion after  the  appeal  will  necessitate  a  reversal  of  the 
judgment.84 

A  statutory  right  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  remedy 
for  its  enforcement.  But  after  the  right  has  vested  it  can 
not  be  taken  away  by  new  legislation  directly  against  the 
right  nor  indirectly  by  taking  away  the  remedy.85  A  stat- 
ute of  Tennessee  provided  that  foreign  insurance  compa- 
nies doing  business  in  the  state  should  file  with  the  insur- 
ance commissioner  a  power  of  attorney  authorizing  the 
secretary  of  state  to  acknowledge  service  of  process  on  be- 
half of  such  companies,  and  provided  that  such  service 
should  be  binding,  though  the  company  had  retired  or 
been  excluded  from  the  state.  This  statute  was  repealed 
and  a  different  method  provided.  It  was  held  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  earlier  statute  became  a  part  of  contracts  made 
while  it  wTas  in  force  and  that  the  secretary  of  state  could 
bind  a  company  which  had  retired  from  the  state  before  the 
repeal  took  place,  by  an  acknowledgment  of  service  made 
after  such  repeal.86  A  statute  made  it  a  duty  to  provide  fire- 
escapes  and  declared  that  failure  to  comply  with  the  statute 
should  be  deemed  negligence.  It  was  held  that  a  repeal  of 
the  statute  did  not  affect  a  right  of  action  which  had  oc- 
curred before  such  repeal  and  was  founded  on  such  failure.87 
The  remedy  may  be  changed.88  And  of  this  nature  are  stat- 

84 The  Schooner  Eachel  v.  United  St.  139;  Farmer  v.  People,  77  111.  822; 

States,  6  Cr.  329,  3  L.  Ed.  239;  Yea-  Knoup  v.  Piqua  Bank,  1  Ohio  St. 

ton  v.  United  States,  5  Cr.  281,  3  L.  603;  Danforth  v.  Smith,  23  Vt.  247: 

Ed.  101.  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  *287,  361,  362; 

85  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  *361;  Less-  Colby  v.  Dennis,  36  Me.  9,  13;  Mus- 

ley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  790;  Birdsall  grove  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R.  R.  Co., 

v.  Wheeler,  58  Conn.  429,  20  Atl.  50  Miss.  677;  Dean  v.  Mellaril,  15  G 

607;  Dow  v.  Electric  Co.,  68  N.  H.  B.  (N.  S.)  19;  Linton  v.  Blakeney, 

59,  31  Atl.  22.  etc.  Society,  3  H.  &  C.  853;  Temple- 

8«  D'Arcy  v.  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  108  ton  v.  Home,  82  111.  491 ;  Harris  v. 

Tenn.  567.  69  S.  W.  768.  Townshend,  56  Vt.  716:  Mechanics' 

87  Gorman    v.  McAidle,  67  Hun,  &  Farmers' Bank's  Appeal,  31  Conn. 
484,  22  N.  Y.  S.  479.  63 ;  Treasurer  v.  Wygal  1, 46  Tex.  44? ; 

88  The  Hickory  Tree  Road,  43  Pa.  Stocking  v.  Hunt,  3  Denio,  274;  Su- 


REPEALS  AM»  REPEALING  ACTS. 

utes  changing  the  rules  of  evidence89  or  the  competency  of 
witness  -  New  statutes  may  be  valid  which  take  away 
defenses  based  on  irregularities  and  informalities,91  by  val- 
idating contracts  executed  without  compliance  with  a  stat- 
ute,98 or  in  violation  of  some  statutory  prohibition.93  When 
a  remedy  upon  a  contract  not  unlawful  is  prohibited,  a  re- 
peal  of  the  statute  will  restore  the  remedy.94  An  act  which 
forbids  a  corporation  to  set  up  the  defense  of  usury  repeals 
as  to  such  corporation  the  laws  against  usury,  and  a  repeal 
of  such  laws  will  cut  off  the  defense  of  usury  upon  contracts 
previously  made/5  An  act  in  regard  to  taxation  declared 
that  mortgages  on  lands  in  more  than  one  county  should  be 
void.  It  was  held  that,  as  the  object  of  the  statute  was  to 
protect  the  public  revenue,  the  intent  of  the  statute  was 
that  such  mortgages  should  be  absolutely  void  and  that  a 
repeal  of  the  act  would  not  have  the  effect  of  validating 
such  mortgages.96 

585  (165).  Effect  on  powers,  jurisdiction  and  pending 
proceedings. —  Powers  derived  wholly  from  a  statute  are 
extinguished  by  its  repeal.     All  acts  done  under  a  statute 

pervisors  v.  Briggs,  id.  173;  Matter  tate  of  Sticknoth,  7  Nev.  223;  Dent- 

of  Palmer.  40  N.  Y.  561;  Dismukes  v.  zel  v.  Waldiev30  Cal.  138. 

St<»kes,  41  Miss.  431;  Mastronada  v.  ^Gibson  v-  Hibbard,  13  Mich.  215; 

60  Miss.  80.     See  Newsom  v.  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  143, 2  S.  C. 

nwood,  4  0re.  119.  Rep. '40S,  27  L.  Ed.  682;   Syracuse 

1  lerbert  v.  Easton,  43  Ala.  547;  Bank  v.  Davis,  16  Barb.  188;  Harris 

Stephenson  v.  Osborne,  41  Miss.  119,  v.  Rutledge,  19  Iowa,  388,  87  Am. 

'i  Am.  1  >ec  358;  Journeay  v.  Gib-  Dec.  441;  State  v.  Norwoodi12  Md. 

son,  56  Pa.  St.  57,  60;  Fotfg  v.  Hoi-  195;  State  v.  Newark,  25  N.  J.  L.  399; 

comb.  64  Iowa,  621,  21  N.  W.  111.  Lewis  v.  McElvain,  16  Ohio,  347; 

mghlin  v.  Commonwealth,  13  Savings  Bank  v.  Allen,  28  Conn. 97; 

261.  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  *374  et  seq. 

oley'sConst,  Lim.,*371  et  seq.  See  New  York,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Van 

I  mlany's  Lessee  v.  Tilghman,  6  Horn,  57  N.  Y.  473. 

I.  461;  Andrews  v.  Russell,  7  ^Johnson  v.  Meeker,  1  Wis.  430. 

l.  174;  Parmelee  v.  Lawrence,  M Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  143,  2 

331;    Webber  v.  Howe,   30  S.  C.  Rep.  408,  27  L.  Ed.  682. 

Mich.  150;  Journeay  v.  Gibson,  50  a6  Denny  v.  McCown,  34  Ore.  47, 

i    57;  Carpenter  v.  Pennsylva-  54  Pac.  952. 
nia,  17  How.  450,  15  L  Ed.  127;  Es- 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


551 


whilst  it  was  in  force  are  good;  but  if  a  proceeding  is  in 
progress,  in  fieri,  when  the  statute  is  repealed,  and  the  pow- 
ers it  confers  cease,  it  fails,  for  it  cannot  be  pursued.97  It  is 
held  that  a  statutory  right  of  appeal  may  be  taken  away, 
even  while  an  appeal  is  pending.98  Jurors  drawn  and  des- 
ignated according  to  law  to  serve  for  a  term  of  court  were 


9?  Bac.  Abr.,  tit.  Statute,  D. ;  Road 
in  Hatfield  Township,  4  Yeates,  392; 
Veats  v.  Danbury,  37  Conn.  412; 
Stoever  v.  Immell,  1  Watts,  258; 
Commonwealth  v.  Beatty,  id.  382; 
Gilleland  v.  Schuyler,  9  Kan.  569; 
Church  v.  Rhodes,  6  How.  Pr.  281; 
Smith  v.  Arapahoe  Dist.  Ct.,  4  Colo. 
235;  State  v.  Brookover,  22  W.  Va. 
214;  New  London  Northern  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  103 
Mass.  389;  Springfield  v.  Commis- 
sioners, G  Pick.  501;  McRee  v.  M'Le- 
more,  8  Heisk.  440;  Downs  v.  Town 
of  Huntington,  35  Conn.  588;  Mac- 
nawhoc  Plantation  v.  Thompson, 
36  Me.  365;  Illinois,  etc.  Canal  v. 
Chicago,  14  111.  334;  Uwchlan  Town- 
ship Road,  30  Pa.  St.  156;  Hunt  v. 
Jennings,  5  Blackf.  195;  Williams 
v.  Middlesex,  4  Met.  76;  Stephen- 
son v.  Doe,  8  Blackf.  508,  46  Am. 
Dec.  489;  James  v.  Dubois,  16  N.  J. 
L.  285;  Petition  of  Fenelon,  7  Pa. 
St.  173;  South  Carolina  v.  Gaillard, 
101  U.  S.  433,  25  L.  Ed.  937;  Hamp- 
ton v.  Commonwealth,  19  Pa.  St. 
329;  Commonwealth  v.  Standard 
Oil  Co.,  101  Pa.  St,  119;  Holmes  v. 
French,  68  Me.  525;  Warne  v.  Beres- 
ford,  2  M.  &  W.  848;  Bucher  v. 
Henderson,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  335;  Todd 
v.  Landry,  5  Martin,  459,  12  Am. 
Dec.  479;  Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16 
Colo.  471,  27  Pac.  1055;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lumpkin,  99  Ga. 
647,  26  S.  E.  74;  State  v.  Order  of 
Elks,  69  Miss.  895,  13  So.  255;  State 
Rev.  Agent  v.  Hill,  70  Miss.  106,  11 


So.  789;  State  v.  Fragiacomo,  71 
Miss.  417,  15  So.  798;  Wooding  v. 
Puget  Sound  Nat.  Bank,  11  Wash. 
527,  40  Pac.  223. 

The  city  of  Evansvillo  passed  an 
ordinance  for  the  improvement  of 
streets  pursuant  to  a  power  given 
in  the  charter.  It  was  held  that 
the  subsequent  repeal  of  the  sec- 
tion conferring  the  power  did  not 
affect  the  ordinance.  Chamber- 
lain v.  Evansville,  77  Ind.  542; 
Dashiell  v.  Baltimore,  45  Md.  615. 
In  March,  1875,  a  trader  committed 
an  act  of  bankruptcy,  upon  which 
a  commission  might  have  issued 
under  the  statutes  then  in  force. 
On  May  1st  these  statutes  were  re- 
pealed. On  May  2d  the  repealing 
act  was  repealed  and  the  former 
acts  thereby  revived.  In  July  a 
commission  of  bankruptcy  issued. 
Held,  it  was  supported  by  the  act 
of  bankruptcy  in  March.  Lord 
Tenterden:  "We  find  certain  stat- 
utes in  force  in  March,  1825,  when 
the  act  of  bankruptcy  was  com- 
mitted, and  we  find  the  same  stat- 
utes in  force  in  July  when  the 
commission  issued.  It  appears  to 
me  that  the  case  is  not  affected  by 
anything  that  passed  in  the  inter- 
val. The  5  Geo.  IV.,  ch.  98,  having 
been  repealed,  is  to  be  considered, 
as  far  as  this  question  is  concerned, 
as  if  it  had  never  existed."  Phillips 
v.  Hop  wood,  10  B.  &  C.  39. 

98 Callahan  v.  Jennings,  16  Colo. 
471,  27  Pac.  1055.    And  see  Lake 


:•:■•_• 


i:i  11  \i  s    am»    1:1  it  ai.im;    acis. 


held  to  oontinue  to  be  legal  jurors  for  the  term,  though  dur- 
ing the  term  a  new  law  went  into  effect  prescribing  a  new 
method  of  drawing  jurors.09  A  grand  jury  summoned  be- 
fore the  repeal  of  a  law  by  a  revision,  which  changes  the 
qualifications  ami  method  of  drawing  grand  jurors,  cannot 
be  impaneled  after  the  repeal  takes  effect.1  If  there  has 
been  a  change  or  alteration  or  repeal  of  the  law  applicable 
to  the  rights  of  the  parties,  after  the  rendition  of  judgment, 
and  pending  an  appeal,  the  case  must  be  heard  and  decided 
in  the  appellate  court,  according  to  the  existing  law.2  When 
a  cause  of  action  is  founded  on  a  statute,  a  repeal  of  the 


Erie  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Walkins,  157 
Ind.  COO,  62  N.  E.  443.  See  post, 
%  717. 

W.'.tv  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc. 
Ry.  Co.,  100  Wis.  128,  75  N.  W.  1022; 
Ray  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.  Ky  Co., 
99  Wis.  617,  75  N.  W.  420. 

1  Clark  v.  United  States,  19  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  295.  And  see  State  v. 
Thomas,  30  La.  Ann.  C03. 

'-'  Musgrove  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.  R.  R. 
<  'o.,  50  Miss.  077;  Lewis  v.  Foster.  1 
N.  11.  61;  Speckert  v.  Louisville,  78 
Ky.  287;  State  v.  Daley,  29  Conn. 
Atwell  v.  Grant.  11  Md.  104; 
Keller  v.  State,  12  id.  325,  71  Am. 
Dec.  596;  Price  v.  Nesbitt,  29  Md. 
263;  Mayor  of  Annapolis  v.  State, 
30  id.  112;  Wade  v.  St.  Mary's 
School,  43  id.  178;  Hartung  v.  Peo- 
ple, 22  NT.  Y.  95;  United  States  v. 
The  Peggy,  1  Cr.  103,  2  L.  Ed.  49; 
Sheppard  v.  State,  1  Tex.  App.  522; 
Vance  v.  Rankin,  194  111.  025.  02 
N.  !■:.  807,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  173;  Mo 
Nabb  v.  Tonica,  103  111.  App.  150; 
Wikel  v.  Commissioners,  120  N.  C. 
451,  27  S.  El  117:  Sherman  v.  Lang- 
ham.  92  Tex.  13,  40  S.  W.  140,  42 
S.  W.  961,  39  L.  R.  A.  258,  200;  The 
Schooner  Rachel  v.  United  States, 


6  Cranch,  329.  3  L.  Ed.  239;  Yeaton 
v.  United  States,  5  Cranch,  281,  3 
L.  Ed.  101.  In  Vance  v.  Rankin, 
194  ill.  625,  62  N.  E.  807,  88  Am.  St. 
Rep  17:;.  the  court  says:  "The  ef- 
fect of  the  repeal  of  a  statute  is  to 
obliterate  the  statute  repealed  as 
completely  as  if  it  had  never  been 
passed,  and  it  must  be  considered 
as  a  law  that  never  existed,  except 
for  the  purposes  of  those  actions 
or  suits  which  were  commenced, 
prosecuted  and  concluded  while  it 
was  an  existing  law.  Pending  ju- 
dicial proceedings  based  upon  a 
statute  cannot  proceed  after  its 
repeal.  This  rule  holds  true  until 
the  proceedings  have  reached  a 
final  judgment  in  the  court  of  last 
resort,  for  that  court,  when  it 
comes  to  pronounce  its  decision, 
conforms  it  to  the  law  then  exist- 
ing, and  may  therefore  reverse  a 
judgment  which  was  correct  when 
pronounced  in  the  subordinate  tri- 
bunal from  whence  the  appeal  was 
taken,  if  it  appears  that  pending 
the  appeal  a  statute  which  was 
necessary  to  support  the  judgment 
of  the  lower  court  has  been  with- 
drawn   by   an    absolute    repeal." 


.REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


553 


statute  before  final  judgment  destroys  the  right,  and  a  judg- 
ment is  not  final  in  this  sense  so  long  as  the  right  of  excep- 
tion thereto  remains.3  While  a  case  was  pending  on  writ 
of  error,  the  statute  on  which  the  jurisdiction  of  the  lower 
court  depended  was  repealed.  The  court  inadvertently  re- 
versed the  judgment  and  remanded  the  cause.  On  its  at- 
tention being  called  to  the  statute,  it  recalled  the  mandate, 
set  aside  the  judgment  of  reversal  and  dismissed  the  writ  of 
error.4  Where  a  jurisdiction  conferred  by  statute  is  prohib- 
ited by  a  subsequent  statute,  or  the  law  conferring  it  is  re- 
pealed, the  jurisdiction  ceases  and  causes  pending  at  the  time 
fail,  and  no  costs  are  recoverable  by  either  party  unless 
saved  by  provisions  of  the  repealing  law.5  If  pursued  the 
proceedings  will  be  void,6  but  they  may  subsequently  be 
validated  in  certain  cases,  as  when  intended  to  establish  a 
public  rather  than  a  private  charge  or  liability.7  Jurisdic- 
tion may  be  taken  away  by  repeal  of  the  statutes  conferring 


pp.  627,  628.  See  Dunham  v.  Anders, 
128  N.  C.  207,  38  S.  E.  832,  83  Am. 
St.  Rep.  668. 

3  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lump- 
kin, 99  Ga.  647,  26  S.  E.  74;  Balch 
v.  Detroit,  109  Mich.  253,  67  N.  W. 
122. 

4  United  States  v.  Kelly,  97  Fed. 
460,  38  C.  C.  A.  275. 

5Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3 
Dall.  378;  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Ritchie,  5  Wall.  541,  18  L.  Ed.  540; 
United  States  v.  Boisdore,  8  How. 
113,  12  L.  Ed.  1009;  Grant  v.  Grant, 
12  S.  C.  29,  32  Am.  Rep.  506;  Mc- 
Nulty  v.  Batty,  10  How.  72,  13  L. 
Ed.  333.  576;  Ex  parte  McCardle,  7 
Wall.  506,  19  L.  Ed.  264;  Assessors 
v.  Osbornes,  9  Wall.  567.  19  L.  Ed. 
748;  United  States  v.  Tynen,  11 
Wall.  88,  20  L.  Ed.  153;  Baltimore, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  98  U.  S.  398, 
25  L.  Ed.  231;  Rice  v.  Wright,  46 
Miss.  679;   Lamb  v.  Schottler,  54 


Cal.  319;  Smith  v.  Arapahoe  Dist. 
Ct,  4  Cola  235;  Wade  v.  St.  Mary's 
Industrial  School,  43  Md.  178;  Saco 
v.  Gurney,  34  Me.  14;  Miller's  Case, 
1  W.  Black.  451;  Yeaton  v.  United 
States,  5  Cr.  281,  3  L.  Ed.  101; 
Springfield  v.  Commissioners  of  H., 
6  Pick.  501;  Commonwealth  v. 
Marshall,  11  id.  350,  22  Am.  Dec. 
377;  Commonwealth  v.  Kimball,  21 
Pick.  373;  Thayer  v.  Seavey,  11  Me. 
284;  Cummings  v.  Chandler,  26  Me. 
453;  Texas  Mexican  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Jar  vis,  80  Tex.  456,  15  S.  W.  1089; 
Fairchild  v.  United  States,  91  Fed. 
297. 

6  North  Canal  Street,  10  Watts, 
351,  86  Am.  Dec.  185;  Church  v. 
Rhodes,  6  How.  Pr.  281;  Morgan  \. 
Thorne,  7  M.  &  W.  400;  Petit  on  of 
Fenelon,  7  Pa.  St.  173;  Bank  of 
Hamilton  v.  Dudley,  2  Pet.  492,  7 
L.  Ed.  496. 

7  In  re  Pennsylvania  Hall,  5  Pa. 


:■:.  i 


REl'EAl  S    ami    REPEALING    ACTS. 


it  by  necessary  implication  as  well  as  by  express  words.8  An 
application  was  made  to  the  court  of  quarter  sessions  for  tho 
discharge  of  a  prisoner  under  an  insolvent  debtor  act,  and 
every  requisite  was  complied  with  by  the  debtor;  but  tho 
court  voluntarily,  and  without  bis  application,  adjourned 
the  matter  to  a  subsequent  day,  before  which  the  act  was 
repealed.  On  motion  for  a  mandamus  to  the  sessions  to  pro- 
to  discharge  him,  the  court  of  king's  bench  refused  to- 
grant  it,  as  no  act  of  jurisdiction  could  be  done  by  the  ses- 
sions  after  the  repeal  of  the  statute,  though  the  proceeding 
had  begun  before.9 

§  286  (166).  Effect  of  repeal  of  a  penal  statute.— The 
repeal  or  expiration  of  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  or  for- 
feiture will  prevent  any  prosecution,  trial  or  judgment  for 
any  offense  committed  against  it  while  it  was  in  force,  un- 
less the  contrary  is  provided  in  the  same  or  some  other  exist- 
ing statute.10    "Where  a  penal  statute  is  so  modified  as  to 


14  See  Cooley's  Const  Lim. 
*371;  Plantation  No.  9  v.  Bean,  36 
Me.  35ft 

«Cates  v.  Knight,  8  T.  R,  442; 
<  Irisp  v.  Bunbury,  8  Bing.  394;  New 
London  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc. 
Ca,  102  Mass.  386. 
9  Rex  v.  Justices  of  London,  3 
Burr.  1456;  Miller's  Case,  1  W. 
Black.  451. 

1    Yeaton  v.  United  States,  5  Cr. 

281.  3  L.   Ed.   101;  Commonwealth 

v.  Marshall,  11  Pick.   3.r)0,  22  Am. 

Dec.  377:  Commonwealth  v.  Pattee, 

12  Cash.  501;  Beald  v.  State,  36Ma 

State,  7  Ark  88;  Rob- 

ae.  2  Overt.  423;  Bennett 

2  Yerg.  472;  Brothers  v. 

Id  201 :  Higginbotbam  v. 

19  Fla.  557;  Lef twiche's  Case, 

n  1.   657;  Scutt'  2  Va, 

5 1 :  B  ml;  of  St.  Mary's  v.  Stat'', 

..  475;  State  v.  Nutt,  Phil.  L. 

le    v.  .State,  42  Ala.    523; 


Governor  v.  Howard,  1  Murphy,  465; 
State  v.  Banks,  12  Rich.  C0(J;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Cain,  14  Bush,  525; 
State  v.  Addington,  2  Bailey,  516; 
United  States  v.  Finlay,  1  Abb. 
(U.  S.)  364.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,099;  The 
Irresistible.  7  Wheat  551,  5  L.  Ed. 
520;  Duane'sCase,  1  Binn.  601;  Bay 
City,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Austin,  21 
Mich.  390;  United  States  v.  Six  Fer- 
menting Tubs,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.)  208, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,296;  Mastrenada  v. 
State,  60  Miss.  86;  -Mayor,  etc.  v. 
State,  30  Md.  112;  Commonwealth 
v.  Welch,  2  Dana,  330;  Harrison  v. 
Allen,  Wythe  (Va.),  291;  Stoever  v. 
Immell.  1  Watts,  258;  Woodburn 
v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  95  Ga. 
808,  23  S.  K.  116;  People  v.  Hiller, 
113  Mich.  209.  71  N.  W.  030;  Lind- 
sey  v.  State,  65  Miss.  542,  5  So.  99, 
7  Am.  St.  Rep.  674;  Hodnett  v. 
State.  <\r,  Miss,  26,  :,  So.  518;  V.rest- 
ter  County  v.  Dressner,  23  Apr* 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


Oc'O 


exempt  a  class  from  its  operation,  violations  by  such  exempted 
class  before  such  modification  took  effect  cannot  be  prose- 
cuted afterwards.11  If  a  penal  statute  is  repealed  pending 
an  appeal  and  before  the  final  action  of  the  appellate  court! 
it  will  prevent  an  affirmance  of  a  conviction,  and  the  prose- 
cution must  be  dismissed  or  the  judgment  reversed.12  A  final 
judgment  before  repeal  is  not  affected  by  it.13  The  repeal 
operates  as  a  pardon  of  all  offenses  against  it14  and  a  bar  to 
any  subsequent  prosecution.15     There"  can  be  no  legal  con- 


Dir.  21.5,  48  N.  Y.  S.  953;  State  v. 
Oliver.  12  Wash.  547,  41  Pac.  895: 
Gulf,  Cola  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lott, 
2  Tex.  Ct.  App.  48;  Cleveland.  Gin. 
C  &  St.  L  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wells,  65 
Ohio  St,  313.  62  N.  E  332;  Dyer  v. 
Ellington.  126  N.  C.  941,  36  SL  E.  137; 
Hilliard  v.  Roach.  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  174; 
State  v.  Mansel,  52  S.  C.  46S,  30  S. 
E.  481. 

11  Commonwealth  v.  Welch,  2 
Dana,  330. 

12  State  v.  King,  12  La  Ann.  593; 
Mouras  v.  The  A.  C.  Brewer,  17  id. 
82;  Keller  v.  State,  12  Aid.  322,  71 
Am.  Dec.  596;  Lewis  v.  Foster,  1 
N.  H.  61;  Speckert  v.  Louisville,  78 
Ky.  287;  Commonwealth  v.  Sher- 
man, 85  id.  686;  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Proctor,  12  Colo.  194,  20 Pac.  615; 
State  v.  Allen,  14  Wash.  103,  44 
Pac.  121;  Mahoneyv.  State.  5  Wyo. 
520,  42  Pac.  12,  63  Am.  St.  Rep.  64. 

^People  v.  Hobson,  4S  Mich.  27, 
27  X.  W.  771;  State  v.  Addington, 
2  Bailey.  516.  See  Aaron  v.  State, 
40  Ala.  307;  Rex  v.  Davis,  1  Leach. 
C.  C.  271;  Rex  v.  Heath,  2  East  P. 
C.  609:  Rex  v.  McKenzie,  R  &  R 
C.  C.  429:  Leschi  v.  Territory.  1 
Wash.  Ty.  13;  Saco  v.  Gurney.  34 
Me.  14;  Gaul  v.  Brown,  53  Me.  496; 
Welch  v.  Wadsworth,  30  Conn.  149, 


79  Am.  Dec.  236;  Heald  v.  State,  36 
Me.  62:  Broughton  v.  Branch  Bank, 
17  Ala,  828;  Taylor  v.  State.  7 
Blackf.  93;  State  v.  Loyd,  2  Ind. 
659;  Thompson  v.  Bassett,  5  id.  535; 
State  v.  O'Conner,  13  La.  Ann.  486; 
State  v.  Cress,  4  Jones  (N.  C),  421 ; 
State  v.  Van  Stralen,  45  Wis.  437: 
State  v.  Campbell,  44  id.  529;  State 
v.  Ingersoll,  17  Wis.  631;  Fisher  v. 
N.  Y.  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  644; 
Calkins  v.  State,  14  Ohio  St.  222; 
Wood  v.  Kennedy,  19  Ind.  68;  State 
v.  Fletcher,  1  R.  I  193;  Greer  v. 
State,  22  Tex.  5S8;  Town  of  Beivi- 
dere  v.  Warren  R  R  Co.,  34  N.  J. 
L  193;  S.  C.  in  error,  35  id.  584; 
Snell  v.  Campbell,  24  Fed.  880: 
Mulkey  v.  State,  16  Tex.  App.  53: 
State  v.  Long,  78  N.  C.  571;  Hub- 
bard v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  506; 
Montgomery  v.  State,  id.  618;  Rood 
v.  Chicago,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  43  Wis.  146; 
State  v.  Cumber.  37  Wis.  298:  Union 
Iron  Co.  v.  Pierce,  4  Biss.  327;  State 
v.  Brewer,  22  La.  Ann.  273. 

14  Wharton  v.  State,  5  Cold.  1. 

15  Howard  v.  State,  5  Ind.  183,  94 
Am.  Dec.  214;  Griffin  v.  State.  39 
Ala.  541;  Genkinger  v.  Common- 
wealth. 32  Pa.  St.  99;  Wall  v.  State, 
18  Tex.  632,  70  Am.  Dec.  302. 


■  •."•  Kl   P]    Al  S     AMI     Kl   IMA  1   lNi,      ACIS. 

D  for  an  offense  unless  the  act  bo  contrary  to  law  at 
the  time  it  is  committed;  nor  can  there  be  judgment  unless 
the  law  is  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  indictment  and  judg- 
ment.16 

Where  a  statute  imposes  a  penalty  for  an  injurious  act 
done  to  the  rights  of  others,  such  penalty  to  be  recovered 
by  the  party  aggrieved,  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  satisfaction  to 
him,  as  well  as  a  punishment  of  the  ofFender.  In  such  a  case 
the  plaintiff  is  said  to  have  acquired  a  vested  right  to  the  pen- 
alty as  soon  as  the  offense  is  committed,  and  a  general  repeal 
of  the  statute  after  action  accrued  does  not  affect  that  right.17 
An  ordinance  passed  pursuant  to  a  power  in  a  city  charter 
is  not  invalidated  by  repeal  of  the  provision  granting  the 
power.18  AVhile  a  convict  in  the  state  prison  was  liable  to 
additional  punishment  under  a  statute  in  force  at  the  time 
of  sentence  and  commitment,  in  consequence  of  having  been 
convicted  and  sentenced  to  confinement,  a  statute  was 
id  so  modifying  the  previous  statute  that  a  convict 
would  lie  liable  to  additional  punishment  only  in  case  he 
had  been  twice  discharged  from  imprisonment.  Before  the 
prisoner  was  released  from  confinement  under  his  second 
sentence  the  modifying  statute  was  repealed.  It  was  held 
that  such  statute  operated  to  suspend,  so  long  as  it  remained 
in  force,  but  not  to  discharge,  the  prisoner's  liability  to  ad- 
ditional punishment.19   The  repeal  of  a  statute  allowing  the 

16  Commonwealth  v.  Marshall,  11  716;  Graham  v.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R. 

Pick  350;  Commonwealth    v.  Mo-  Co.,  53  Wis.  473, 10  N.  W.  609;  Grey 

Donough,  13  Allen,  581;  Common-  v.  Mobile  Trade  Co.,  55  Ala.  387,  28 

wealth    v.    Kimball,  21  Pick.  373;  Am.  Rep.  729.     See  Union  Iron  Co. 

Hartung  v.  People.  22  X.  Y.  95;  Pit-  v.  Pierce,  4  Biss.  327;  Eay  City,  etc. 

man  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Austin,  21  Mich.  390; 

81  ;:  State  v.  Daley,  20  Conn.  272.  Hibbar.l  v.  Parmenter,  etc.  Co.,  70 

»  President,  etc.  of  L.  v.  Harri-  N.  H.  156,46  Atl.  683. 

B.  &  C.  524;  Company  of  Cut-  1H  Chamberlain  v.  Evansville,   77 

.  ku.slin,  Skinner, 363;  Palmer  IndL  542. 

!y.    1    Denio,  371     L'   N.   Y.  19  Commonwealth  v.  Getcliell,  16 

182;  Thompson   v.   Bowe,  46  Barb.  Pick.  452.     See  Commonwealth  v. 

287;  Harris  v.  Townshend,  56  Vt  Mott,  21  Pick.  402. 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


557 


defendant  to  give  bail  in  a  criminal  case  pending  an  appeal 
annuls  the  right  as  to  past  offenses  or  pending  cases.20 

§  287  (167).  Saving  clauses  and  general  saving  stat- 
utes,—  The  effect  of  repeal  upon  inchoate  rights,  upon  of- 
fenses and  upon  incomplete  proceedings  may  be  avoided  by 
a  saving  clause  providing  that  it  shall  not  affect  such  rights, 
prosecutions  for  such  offenses,  or  such  proceedings,21  or  by 
a  general  statute  for  that  purpose.  Such  general  statutes 
have  been  enacted  in  nearly  all  of  the  states  as  well  as  by 
congress.22  The  provision  in  the  Iowa  statute  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  typical  one  of  this  sort.23  "  The  repeal  of  a  stat- 
ute does  not  revive  a  statute  previously  repealed,  nor  affect 
any  right  which  has  accrued,  any  duty  imposed,  any  pen-- 


20  In  re  Shoemaker,  2  Okl.  606, 
39  Pac.  284. 

21  People  v.  Gill,  7  Cal.  356;  Peo- 
ple v.  Maxwell,  73  Hun,  157,  31  N. 
Y.  S.  564. 

22  See  United  States  v.  Reisinger, 
12S  U.  S.  398,  9  S.  C.  Rep.  99,  32  L. 
Ed.  480. 

In  the  following  cases  general 
saving  statutes  were  construed  and 
applied:  Peltier  v.  Bradley,  67 
Conn.  43,  34  Atl.  712,  32  L.  R.  A.  651 ; 
State  v.  Helms,  136  Ind.  122,  35  N. 
E.  893:  Starr  v.  State,  149  Ind.  592, 
49  N.  E.  591 ;  Meagher  v.  Drury,  89 
Iowa,  366,  56  N.  W.  531 ;  Denning  v. 
Yount,  62  Kan.  217,  61  Pac.  803,  50 
L.  R.  A.  103;  Denning  v.  Yount.  9 
Kan.  App.  708,  59  Pac.  1092;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Duff,  87  Ky.  586, 9  S. 
W.  816;  Commonwealth  v.  Selby, 
87  Ky.  594,  9  S.  W.  819;  Miles  v. 
Commonwealth,  16  Ky.  L.  R.  92; 
Commonwealth  v.  Sullivan,  150 
Mass.  315,  23  N.  E.  47;  State  v. 
Smith.  62  Minn.  540,  64  N.  W.  1022; 
State  v.  Reads,  76  Minn.  69,  78  N. 
W.  883;  Sigman  v.  Lundy,  66  Miss. 


522,  6  So.  245;  Gassert  v.  Bogk,  7 
Mont.  585,  19  Pac.  281,  1  L.  R.  A. 
240:  Bookwalter  v.  Conrad,  15 
Mont.  464,  39  Pac.  573,  851;  Chi- 
cago Title  &  T.  Co.  v.  O'Marr,  18 
Mont.  568,  46  Pac.  809,  47  Pac.  4; 
State  v.  Crusius,  57  N.  J.  L.  279,  31 
Atl.  235;  Barnaby  v.  Bradley  & 
Currier  Co.,  60  N.  J.  L.  158,  37  Atl. 
764;  People  v.  New  York  Central, 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  156  N.  Y.  570, 51  N.  E. 
312;  Empire  State  Savings  Bank  v. 
Beard,  81  Hun,  184,  30  N.  Y.  S.  756; 
Wirt  v.  Supervisors,  90  Hun,  205, 
35  N.  Y.  S.  887;  Lancaster  v. 
Knight,  74  App.  Div.  255,  77  N.  Y. 
S.  488;  People  v.  Bremer,  69  App. 
Div.  14,  74  N.  Y.  S.  570;  McCann  v. 
Mortgage  Bank  &  Invest.  Co.,  3  N. 
D.  172,  54  N.  W.  1026;  Wallace  v. 
Goodlett,  104  Tenn.  670,  58  S.  W. 
343;  Bratton  v.  Johnson,  76  Wis. 
430,  45  N.  W.412;  Crocker  v.  Hunt- 
zicker,  113  Wis.  181,  88  N.  W.  232; 
United  States  v.  Keokuk  &  H.. 
Bridge  Co.,  45  Fed.  178. 
23  Iowa  Code  (1888),  §  49,  par.  1. 


KEl'KAl  -    AM'    REP]  Al.lNt,    A.0T8. 


incurred,  or  any  proceeding  commenced,  under  and  by 
virtue  of  the  statute  repealed."  A  tax  voted  and  levied 
was  held  to  be  saved  by  that  provision,  though  the  statute 
under  whieh  the  tax  was  so  levied  was  repealed  before  the 
collection  of  the  tax.'-1  Such  a  general  provision  has  the 
same  effect  as  a  saving  clause  in  the  repealing  statute.''"' 
meral  statutes  do  not  bind  the  legislature,  but  in 
the  absence  of  anything  showing  the  contrary,  it  is  pre- 
sumed that  it  was  intended  that  they  should  apply.26  These 
general  saving  statutes  are  held  not  to  apply  to  the  repeal 
of  city  ordinances.27  A  saving  clause  is  intended  to  save 
something  which  would  otherwise  bo  lost.28  An  act  grant- 
ing review  after  judgment  was  repealed  "saving  all  actions 
pending;"  this  saving  was  held  to  mean  a  saving  of  some 
thing  out  of  that  winch  was  repealed,  and  therefore  to  save 
pending  petitions  for  review.29  It  may  embrace  an  inchoate 


«*Tobin  v.   Hartshorn,  G9  Iowa, 

29  N.  W.  7(34. 
25  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.  Ry.  Co.   v. 

■il  Co..  41  Iowa,  1",:',;  Dillon  v. 
Lmder,  36  Wis.  341;  Burlington  v. 
Burlington,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  41  Iowa, 
134;  Bartruff  v.  Kemey^  15  id  257; 
Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Harts- 
horn, 30  Fed.  Rep.  541;  United 
States  v.   Barr,   1  Sawy.  254.  Fed. 

So.  11.-VJ7;  Garland  v.  Hickey, 
75  Wis.  178,  43  N.  W.  832;  Harris 
v.  Townshend,  5G  Vt.  71G;  Jones  v. 

.  1  Iowa,  395;  Volmerv.  State, 

■  \    Ark.   487;    Sanders  v.  State,  77 

I    227;  Tempe  v.  State.  40  Ala. 

state  v.  Ross,  40  Mo.  41G;  Treat 

i  ickland,  23  Me.  234;  I  line  v. 
Pomen  ;. .  39  Vt.  21 1 ;  State  v.  Boyle, 
lu  Kan.  113;  State  v.  Crawford,  11 
i  lin  v.  Ferat,  55  Ga  546; 
•  3tate,  19  Ark.  634;  Peo- 
ple v.  Sloan.  2  Utah.  836;  McCal- 
iu<-nt  v.  state,  77  In<l.  250;  Fowle 
v    Kirkland,  18  Pick.  299;   Barton 


v.  Gadsden,  79  Ala  495;  Grace  v. 
Donovan,  12  Minn.  580;  Pacific, 
etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth.  66 
Fa.  St.  70;  Mongeon  v.  People,  55 
N.  Y.  613;  State  v.  Hardman,  1G 
Ind.  A  pp.  357,  45  N.  E.  345. 

2«  People  v.  England,  91  Hun,  152, 
36  N.  Y.  S.  1130;  McCann  v.  New 
York,  r,2  A  pp.  Div.  358,  65  N.  Y.  S. 
308. 

27  Rutherford  v.  Swink,  96  Tenn. 
564,  35  S.  W.  554. 

28  Colby  v.  Dennis,  36  Me.  9,  12. 

29  Id.  When  a  real  action  was 
commenced  a  statute  was  in  force 
which  provided  that  if  either  of  the 
demandants  should  die  during  the 
pendency  of  a  real  action  his  death 
should  be  suggested  on  the  record, 
and  that  the  survivor  might  amend 
his  declaration  by  describing  his 
interest  in  the  premises  and  pro- 
ceed in  the  cause  to  final  judgment. 
During  the  pendency  of  the  action 
the  statutes  were  revised  so  as  to 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS. 


559 


right  as  well  as  the  remedy  for  its  enforcement  when  it 
matures.30  A  saving,  that  actions  pending  at  the  time  of 
the  repeal  or  passage  of  an  act  shall  not  be  affected  thereby, 
does  not  include  proceedings  in  insolvency,31  nor  a  petition 
pending  before  county  commissioners  for  the  location  of  a 
highway.32  A  municipal  appropriation  within  the  restric- 
tions of  the  charter,  when  made,  is  not  affected  by  a  subse- 
quent statute  so  changing  the  limit  that  such  appropriation 
would  exceed  it,  where  the  new  statute  contains  a  provision 
that  "nothing  in  this  act  shall  in  an}'  measure  affect  or  im- 
pair any  proceeding  had  and  done  under  the  acts  to  which 
this  is  an  amendment,  or  any  rights  or  privileges  acquired 
under  said  acts." 33 

A  general  law  for  the  incorporation  of  cities  provided 
that  any  city  under  a  special  charter  might  adopt  any  chap- 


repeal  that  provision,  but  the  revis- 
ion contained  these  saving  clauses: 
That  all  real  actions  which  shall  be 
pending  '"shall  proceed  and  be  con- 
ducted to  final  judgment,  or  other 
final  disposal,  in  like  manner  as  if 
this  chapter  had  never  been  en- 
acted; "  in  another  section  a  saving 
to  all  persons  of  "all  actions  and 
causes  of  action  which  shall  have 
accrued  in  virtue  of  or  founded  on 
any  of  said  repealed  acts,  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  such  acts  had 
never  been  repealed."  It  was  con- 
tended that  that  action  did  not  ac- 
crue in  virtue  of  the  repealed  act, 
nor  was  founded  on  it.  Shepley,  J., 
said:  '"When  the  language  is  consid- 
ered in  connection  with  [the  other 
saving  clause]  and  with  the  recol- 
lection that  the  general  purpose  of 
the  revision  was  to  embody  in  a 
more  systematic  form  the  existing 
laws,  with  certain  modifications 
and  new  provisions,  without  de- 
stroying existing  rights,  there  can 


be  little  doubt  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  legislature  to  preserve 
not  only  actions  which,  technically 
and  properly  speaking,  accrued  or 
had  been  founded  on  the  statute, 
but  those  also  which  were  preserved 
and  secured  to  a  party  by  the  re- 
pealed act."  Treat  v.  Strickland. 
23  Me.  234. 

30  Cochran  v.  Taylor,  13  Ohio  St. 
382. 

"Belfast  v.  Fogler,  71  Me.  403. 
Provisions  saving  pending  proceed- 
ings are  construed  in  the  following 
cases:  Rice  v.  McCaully,  7  Houst. 
226,  31  Atl.  240;  Nelson  v.  Sykes,  44 
Minn.  68,  46  N.  W.  207;  Hopkins  v. 
Jamieson-Dixon  Mill  Co.,  11  Wash. 
308,  39  Pac.  815. 

32  Webster  v.  County  Commis- 
sioners, 63  Me.  27;  Downs  v.  Town 
of  Huntington,  35  Conn.  588.  And 
see  Burlington  v.  Burlington  Trac- 
tion Co.,  70  Vt.  491,  41  Atl.  514 

33Beatty,  Auditor,  v.  People,  6 
Colo.  538. 


;:l  P]  A.LS    A.\n    REP]  AXING    A.0T8. 

ter  or  Bection  in  lieu  of  its  oharter  on  the  same  subject.  It 
was  held  that  BUch  adoption  had  the  same  effect  as  an 
amendment  of  the  oharter  and  that  the  general  saving  stat- 
ate  would  apply  to  save  any  rights  under  the  charter  pro- 
visions displaced  by  the  adoption.84  But  where  a  local 
prohibitory  statute  was  displaced  by  the  adoption  of  a  local 
option  law,  it  was  held  that  prosecutions  under  the  pro- 
hibitory law  were  not  preserved  by  the  general  saving  stat- 
An  act  of  February  10,  1893,  repealed  the  mortgage 
tax  law  without  any  saving  clause  as  to  taxes  then  due. 
On  February  21,  1S93,  an  act  was  passed  that  these  taxes 
should  be  collected  as  if  there  had  been  no  repeal.  Both 
acts  went  into  immediate  effect.  It  was  held  that  the  acts 
to  be  construed  together  and  that  the  saving  clause  of 
the  later  act  was  virtually  incorporated  into  the  earlier.™ 
The  right  to  peremptory  challenges  in  a  criminal  case  is 
not  to  accrue  until  the  defendant  is  put  on  trial,  and 
where  the  statute  giving  such  right  is  repealed  before  the 
trial,  the  right  is  not  preserved  by  a  general  saving  statute, 
that  a  repeal  shall  not  affect  any  right  accrued  before  such 
repeal.37  And  the  same  saving  statute  was  held  not  to  pre- 
serve a  lien  for  wages,  where  the  repeal  of  the  statute  took 
place  after  the  labor  was  performed  and  before  proceedings 
commenced.38 

A  revenue  act  provided  that  lands  sold  for  the  non-pay- 
ment of  taxes  could  be  redeemed  within  a  certain  time  upon 
the  payment  of  a  fixed  penalty.  The  act  was  repealed  by 
a  subsequent  one,  changing  the  time  of  redemption  and  the 
amount  of  the  penalty,  but  providing  that  the  former  act 
should  remain  in  force  for  the  collection  of  taxes  levied 
thereunder.  It  was  held  that  an  act  in  force  for  the  pur- 
pose of  collection  was  in  force  for  the  purpose  of  redemp- 

M  M;tuch  v.  Hartford,  112  Wis.  40,    Pac.  642;  Windle  v.  Hughes,  40  Ore. 

.    W.  816.  1,  65  Pac.  10>. 

v>  Wooten  v.  Commonwealth,  98  37  Mathis  v.  State,  31  Fla,  291,  12 
Kv  -  Sa  681. 

ili  v.  Kelly,  24  Ore.  464,  33        »  National  Bank  v.  Williams,  38 

Fla.  305,  20  So.  931. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  561 

tion.39  The  lien  of  a  judgment  in  respect  to  duration  was 
held  saved  by  the  words  "no  rights  vested  or  liabilities  in- 
curred at  that  time  shall  be  lost  or  discharged."  The  judg- 
ment lien  is  incident  to  a  judgment,  a  liability  incurred, 
and  therefore  saved  from  the  effect  of  the  repealing  stat- 
ute.40 A  saving  of  pending  prosecutions  does  not  include  a 
case  where  the  prosecution  has  closed  and  sentence  has  been 
pronounced;41  nor  cases  commenced  afterwards.42  Under 
a  saving  of  pending  prosecutions  and  offenses  theretofore 
committed,  an  indictment  filed  after  the  repeal  took  effect 
was  sustained.43  Such  a  provision  in  a  repealing  act  relates 
solely  to  the  acts  repealed  by  it,44  unless  a  different  inten- 
tion is  deducible  from  the  language  of  the  saving  clausQ. 
A  provision  in  the  repealing  law  to  the  effect  "  that  no 
remedy  to  which  a  creditor  is  entitled  under  the  provisions 
of  the  laws  heretofore  in  force  shall  be  impaired  by  this 
act"  does  not  apply  to  creditors  suing  for  breaches  of  the 
bond  occurring  since  the  enactment  of  the  repealing  stat- 
ute.45 The  effect  of  the  repeal  of  a  statute  and  its  re-enact- 
ment in  the  same  words  b}r  a  statute  which  takes  effect  at 
the  same  time  with  the  repealing  act  is  to  continue  such 
statute  in  uninterrupted  operation.46  The  rule  is  the  same 
as  to  criminal  offenses.47 

§  288  (168).  Revival  by  repeal  of  repealing  statute. — 
The  common-law  rule  is  well  settled  that  the  simple  repeal, 
suspension  or  expiration  of  a  repealing  statute  revives  the 

s»  Wolfe  v.  Henderson,  28  Ark.  Dashiell  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  45  Md.  615; 

304.  Capron    v.    St  rout,   11    Nev.    304; 

M Dearborn  v.  Patton,  3  Ore.  420.  United   Hebrew  B.  Asso.  v.  Ben- 

«  Aaron  v. State, 40  Ala.  307.   See  shimol,   130  Mass.   325;    Knoup  v. 

Luke  v.  Calhoun  Co.,  56  Ala.  415.  Bank,  1  Ohio  St.  603;  Coffin  v.  Rich, 

«2  Knox  v.  Baldwin,  80  N.  Y.  610.  45  Me.  507,  71  Am.  Dec.  559;  Smith 

«  Sanders  v  State,  77  Ind.  227.  v.  Estes,  46  Me.  158. 

"Mongeon    v.    People,  55  N.  Y.  47  State  v.  Gumber,  37  Wis.  298; 

613.  State  v.  Wish,  15  Neb.  448,  19  N. 

« Collins  v.  Warren,  63  Tex.  311.  W.  686;  ante,  §  238;  McMullen  v. 

46  Laud e   v.   Chicago,  etc.  R  R.  Guest,  6  Tex.  278;  Hirschburg  v. 

Co.,  33  Wis.  640;  Middleton  v.  N.  People,  6  Colo.  145. 
J.  etc.  R.  R  Co.,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  269; 
36 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 


repealed  statute,  whether  such  repeal  was  express  or  only 
by  implication.48  But  it  is  frequently  provided  by  statute 
that  the  repeal  of  a  repealing  act  shall  not  have  that  effect.49 
Where  a  law  is  merely  suspended,  the  removal  of  its  suspen- 
sion restores  its  operation  notwithstanding  such  a  statute.80 
The  constitution  of  New  Jersey  provides  that  "no  law  shall 
be  revived  or  amended  by  reference  to  its  title  only,  but  the 
act  revived,  or  the  section  or  sections  amended,  shall  be  in- 
s  i  ted  at  length."  It  has  been  held  by  the  highest  eourtof 
that  state  that  this  provision  does  not  cover  a  revival  by 
operation  of  law  and,  therefore,  that  the  repeal  of  a  repeal- 
ing act  revives  the  original  act.51  The  same  ruling  has  been 
made  in  Tennessee  in  a  case  where  the  first  repeal  was  by 
implication  only.5-     When  a  statute  restraining  a  man's  nat- 


«»Gale    v.    Mead,    4    Hill,    109; 
Brown  v.  Barry,  3  Dall.  305;  People 
v.  Davis.  61  Barb.  450;  Wheeler  v. 
Roberts.  7  Cow.  536;  Van  Denbur-h 
v.  President,  etc.,  60  N.  Y.  1 ;   Van 
Yalkenburgh  v.  Torrey,  7  Cow.  252 ; 
People   v.  Trustees,  26   Hun,   488; 
i  lommonwealth  v.  Cburchill,  2  Met. 
I  tastings  v.  Aiken.  1  <  Iray,  it'.:!; 
McMillan  v.  Bellows,  37  Hun,  214; 
Doe  v.  Naylor,  2  Black f.  :;2:  Harris 
v.  Supervisors,  33  Hun,  279;   Zim- 
merman v.  Perkiomen.  etc.  Co.,  8*1* 
:  Baum  v.  Thorns.  150  Ind. 
0    X.  E.  857,    65  Am.  St.  Rep. 
Mayor  v.  Broadway,  or  N.  Y. 
1 1  v.  Holt,  1  16  N.  V.  30,  32 
710;  People  v.  Scannel,G2  App. 
Div.  240,  70  N.  Y.  S.  983;  Greenlee 
v.  Kisenbrosvn,  10   Pa.  Co.  I  t.  483; 
Ottman   v.    Hoffman,  7  Misc.  714, 
-.     It   has  been   held 
that  a  statute  repealed  by  two  acts 
is   not  revived  by  repeal  of  one  of 
them.     Dyer  v.  State,  Meigs,   237; 
Teter  v.  Clayton,  71  Ind.  237;  Poor 
J  nr-:'  tors   v.  R.  R.  Co.,  7   Watts   & 


S.  230;  Zimmerman  v.  Perkiomen, 
81*  Pa.  St.  96;  Longlois  v.  Longlois, 
48  Ind.  60:  Waugh  v.  Riley,  68  id. 
482;  Niblack,  Adrn'r,  v.  Goodman, 
67  id.  174;  Brinkley  v.  Bwicegood, 
65  N.  C.  626;  Harrison  v.  Walker,  1 
Ga.  32;  People  v.  Wintermute,  1 
Dak.  63,  46  N.  W.  694;  Janes  v.  Buz- 
zard, Hempst.  259;  Witkouski  v. 
Witkouski,  16  La.  Ann.  232;  Talla- 
mon  v.  Cardenas,  14  id.  509;  Weak- 
ley v.  Pearee,  5  Heisk.  401;  High- 
tower  v.  Wells,  6  Yerg.  249.  See 
Southwark  Bank  v.  Common- 
wealth, 26  Pa!  St.  446. 

<9Rice  v.  Commonwealth,  22  Ky. 
L.  R.  1793,  61  S.  W.  473;  State  v. 
Sawell,  107  Wis.  300,  83  N.  W.  296. 

5"  State  v.  Sawell,  107  Wis.  300, 
83  X.  W.  296;Cassell  v.  Lexington, 
etc.  Turnpike  Co.,  10  Ky.  I*  R,  486, 
9  S.  W.  502. 

61  Wallace  v.  Bradshaw.  54  N.  J. 
L.  17".,  23  Atl.  759,  reversing  53  N. 
J.  L.  315,  21  Atl.  941. 

"State  v.  King,  104  Tenn.  156,  57 
S.  W.  150;  Zickler  v.  Union  Bank 


REPEALS   AND   REPEALING   ACTS.  563 

ural  rights,  or  his  use  of  his  property,  is  repealed,  he  is  re- 
stored to  those  rights,  as  before  the  law  was  passed.53  This 
rule  of  revival  was  held  to  apply  to  the  vote  of  a  tax  by  tax- 
able inhabitants.  This  vote  was  restored  to  effect  by  re- 
pealing a  rescinding  vote.54  Where  a  statute  professes  to 
repeal  absolutely  a  prior  law  and  substitutes  other  provis- 
ions on  the  same  subject  which  are  limited  to  continue  only 
till  a  certain  time,  the  prior  law  does  not  revive  after  the 
repealing  statute  is  spent,  unless  the  intention  of  the  legis- 
lature to  that  effect  is  expressed.55  The  legislature  may 
make  the  revival  of  an  act  depend  upon  a  future  event  to 
be  made  known  by  executive  proclamation.56  Where  an 
act  is  revived  by  a  subsequent  law  the  legislature  must  be 
understood  to  give  it,  from  the  time  of  its  revival,  precisely 
that  force  and  effect  which  it  had  at  the  moment  when  it 
expired.57  Incomplete  proceedings  which  were  arrested  and 
rendered  void  by  repeal  of  the  statute  under  which  they 
were  instituted  will  not  be  restored  to  life  by  a  revival 
thereof.58  A  forfeiture  for  a  prohibited  act  was  given  by 
statute  to  any  one  who  should  sue  for  it.  Afterwards  the 
exclusive  right  to  sue  for  it  was  given  to  overseers  of  the 
poor.  The  repeal  of  this  act  was  held  to  operate  only  pros- 
pectively and  gave  no  right  to  any  other  than  the  overseers 

&  T.  Co.,  104  Tenn.   277,  57  S.  W.  pealed,   but  its  operation   merely 

341.  Contra,  Renter  v.  Bauer,  3  Kan.  suspended  or  interrupted   by  the 

503.     In    the   first  case  cited   the  adoption  of  another  rule."   pp.166, 

court  says:  "Whatever  may  be  the  167. 

law  as  to  the  revival  of  laws  which  53  James  v.  Dubois,  16  N.  J.  L.  285. 

have  been   expressly  repealed    by  5i  Gale  v.  Mead,  4  Hill,  109. 

repealing    the    repealing    act,    it  55  Warren  v.  Windle,  3  East,  205. 

has  been  held  in  this  state,  and  we  56  Cargo  of  Brig  Aurora  v.  United 

thinlc    upon   sound   principle,  that  States,  7  Cr.  382,  3  L.  Ed.  378. 

when  a  law  has   been   repealed  by  "  Id.     See  Shipman  v.  Henbest, 

implication    merely,  the  repeal  of  4  T.  R.  109;   Winter   v.  Dickerson, 

the  act  which  thus  impliedly  re-  42  Ala.  92. 

peals  the  former  law  revives  such  58  Commonwealth   v.   Leech,    24 

law,  and  this  for  the  reason   such  Pa.  St.  55. 
former  law  was  never,  in  fact,  re- 


56-i  REPEALS    -\\l>    REPEALING    ACTS. 

for  forfeitures  incurred  during  the  operation  of  the  second 

Where  the  repeal  of  a  repealing  statute  is  for  the  purpose 
of  substituting  other  provisions  in  its  place,  the  implication 
of  an  intention  t<>  revive  the  repealed  statute  cannot  arise, 
and  especially  if  the  substituted  provision  is  repugnant  to 
the  original  provision,  or  is  not  properly  cumulative  to  it.,i0 
So  the  repeal  of  a  statute  which  was  a  revision  of  and  a 
substitute  for  a  former  act  to  the  same  effect  which  was 
therefore  repealed  cannot  be  deemed  to  revive  the  previous 
act;  for  this  would  be  plainly  contrary  to  the  intention  of 
the  legislature.81  And  where  a  statutory  provision  has  been 
repealed  without  change  in  the  amendatory  act  and  the  lat- 
3  afterwards  repealed,  the  original  provision  is  repealed 
also.83  Statutes  have  been  very  generally  adopted  in  the 
states  abolishing  the  rule  of  implied  revival  as  a  consequence 
of  the  repeal  of  the  repealing  statute.63 

In  State  v.  Slaughter84  the  court  construed  the  effect  of  a 
general  provision  that  "where  any  law  repealing  any  former 
law,  clause  or  provision  shall  itself  be  repealed,  it  shall  not 
be  considered  to  revive  such  former  law,  clause  or  provis- 
ion, unless  it  be  expressly  otherwise  provided."  It  was  held 
that  if  the  section  of  the  marriage  act  under  consideration 
repealed  or  superseded  the  common  law  on  the  subject  of 
incestuous  marriages,  its  repeal  would  not  revive  the  com- 
mon law.  Where  a  revival  requires  re-enactment,  a  legis- 
lative declaration  that  an  act  mentioned  shall  not  repeal 
the  provision  will  not  suffice.65  Where  a  general  act  appli- 

5'  Y:tn  Valkenburgh  v.  Torrey,  7  62Moody  v.  Seaman,  40   Mich.  7). 

Cow.  8  N.  W.  711;  Goodno  v.  Oshkosh.  ::i 

6<>  Commonwealth  v.  Churchill,  2  Wis.  127;  People  v.  Supervisors.  67 

Met.  lis;  Bouton  v.  Royce,  lOPhila.  N.  Y.  109,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  !)4;  Ilar- 

Warren  v.  Windle,3  East,  205.  rwv.  Supervisors,  83  Hun,  279. 

81  Butler   v.  Russel,  3  Cliff.   251,  M  See  Milne  v.  Huber,  8  McLean, 

No.  2-243;   Butner  v.  Boi-  212,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9017. 

feuillet,  100   Ga.    743,  28  S.  E.  464;  «4  70  Mo.  48  I. 

Stat-  v.  Burk,  88   Iowa,  001.  56   N.  «5  State  v.  Conkling,  19  Cal.  501. 
W.  180;  Cochrane  v.  King  County, 
12  Wash.  518,41  Pac.  922. 


KEPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  565 

cable  to  all  the  counties  of  the  state  is  repealed  as  to  a  par- 
ticular  county,  and  a  still  later  act  amends  a  section  so 
partially  repealed,  the  amendment  will  not  be  deemed  to 
affect  the  excluded  county.66 

Where  a  repealing  act  is  repealed  before  it  goes  int« 
effect,  it  is  nugatory  and  the  original  act  stands.67     Where 
a  local  or  special  law  is  repealed  by  another  local  or  special 
law  and  the  latter  is  then  repealed,  it  is  held  that  the  orig- 
inal act  is  not  revived,  if  there  is  a  general  law  covering  the 
subject.63     An  act  imposing  certain  fees  and   duties  upon 
auctioneers  was  amended  "so  as  to  read  as  follows  »  and 
the  amendatory  act  repealed.     The  latter  act   contained 
provisions  which  indicated  that  the  legislature  supposed 
that  the  repeal  revived  the  original  act.     Two  years  later 
the  next  legislature  passed  an  act  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  original  act  was  in  force.     It  was  held  that 
this  belief  or  assumption  of  the  legislature  could  have  no 
effect  to  revive  the  original  act  without  appropriate  words 
to  that  effects     Where  a  city  was  incorporated  under  a 
general  law  and  afterwards  under  a  special  charter,  it  was 
held  that  the  repeal  of  the  latter  did  not  restore  the  former 
organization.70 

66  People  v.  Tyler,  36  Cal.  522.  again  breathed  into  it The 

S  E SOS™  V'         8ht'  M  Ga>  72°'  "     bClief  °f  the   le«'SlatUre  of  18^ 

*eo  "J"     '  however,  has  not  the  slightest  tenrl- 

JKoos  Street,  12  P.  Sup„  «.     eney  to  prove  what  «  £££ 

69  *pa     i          w,        ,-  effect  of  the  action  of  the  Iegisla- 

Y    36     P3»  N   fI      rt  136  *  tUre°f  1868"P- the  prior  statutes. 

J:        :A  f  N\E               The  co^  This  is  a  simple  question  of  law. 

says:     A  legislative  intent  to  work  We  find  from  an  examination  of 

a  revival  of  a  law  which  already,  the  act  of  1868  that  the  act  of  1866 

by     eg!S,at,ve    act.on,    has    been  was  plainly  and  in   unmistakable 

wholly  annihilated   is    not    alone  language  repealed.     The  fact  that 

sufficient  to  accomplish  such   re-  the  legislature  of  1883  treated  the 

vival.     There    must  be  some  Ian-  third  section  of  the  act  of  1866  as 

guage  used  which  is  at  least  equiv-  still  alive  is  simply  proof  of  a  legis- 

alent  to  an  enactment  before  an  lative  error  in  regard  to  the  law  " 

act,  which  had  become  wholly  ex-  pp.  373,  374. 

tinct  and  blotted  out,  can  be  re-  w  Ru'ohs  v.  Athens,  91  Tenn  *0 

vived  and  have  the  breath  of  life  18  S.  W.  400,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  858.' 


REPEALS    AND   EEPEALINq    ACTS. 

289.  Constitutional  provisions  as  to  repeals. —  The 

constitution  of  Georgia  provides  as  follows:  "No  law,  or 

n  of  the  code,  shall  be  amended  or  repealed  by  mere 

reference  to  its  title,  or  to  the  number  of  the  section  of  the 

ode,  but  the  amending  or  repealing  act  shall  distinctly  de- 
scribe the  law  to  be  amended  or  repealed,  as  well  as  the 
alteration  to  be  made/'71  A  repealing  act  which  gives  the 
title  of  the  act  repealed  and  date  of  its  approval  is  held  to 
comply  with  the  constitution.72  The  constitution  of  Tennes- 
see  contains  a  similar  provision  reading  as  follows:  "All 
nets  which  repeal,  revive  or  amend  former  laws  shall  recite 

n  their  caption  or  otherwise  the  title  or  substance  of  the 
law  repealed,  revived  or  amended."  An  act  to  repeal  cer- 
tain sections  of  an  act  gave  the  title  of  the  act  containing 
the  sections  and  the  date  of  its  passage,  and  was  held  suf- 
ficient.73 It  is  held  that  these  constitutional  provisions  do 
ri.it  apply  to  repeals  by  implication.74 

:.;<>.  Repeal  by  constitution. —  Ordinarily  constitu- 
I  onal  provisions  imposing  limitations  upon  the  legislative 
power  are  prospective  in  their  operation  and  do  not  repeal 

sxisting  statutes."  But  a  constitutional  provision  may  be 
so  framed  as  to  repeal  all  inconsistent  legislation.76     The 

institution  of  Mississippi,  adopted  in  1890,  forbids  local  or 
jpecial  laws  on  various  subjects,  and  among  others  exempt- 
ing any  person  from  jury,  road,  or  other  civil  duty,  and  de- 

7>  Const.   1877,  art.  3,  sec.  7,  par.  v.  Memphis,  93  Tenn.  571,  26  S.  W. 

17.  828;  State  v.  Yardley,  95  Tenn.  546, 

«  Adam  v.  Wright,  84  Ga.  720.  11  32  S.  W.  481,  34  L.  R.  A.  636;  Hen- 

,i   v.  Williams,  ley  v.  State,  98  Tenn.  665,  41  S.  W. 

17,  27  s.  E.  183.  352. 

"Ruohs  v.  Athens,  91  Tenn.  20,  75  Pecot   v.    Police  Jury,  41   La. 

W.  400,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  858.  Ann.  706,  6  So.  677;  ante,  g  190. 

'*  Johnson  v.  Southern  Mut.  B.  &  '"Griebel  v.  State,  111  Ind.  369, 12 

L  Ass'n,  97  Ga.  622,  25  S.  K.  358;  N.    K.   700;  Fesler  v.  Bray  ton.  145 

Collins  v.  Russell.  107  Ga.  423,  33  Ind.  71,  44  N.  E.  37;  Van  Pelt  v. 

A    i;.     til:     Biggins    v.    Mitchell  Gardner,  54  Neb.  701,  75  N.  W.  874; 

..  •;  Kan.   App.  314,  51  Pac.  Remington  v.  Higgins,  0  S.  D.  313, 

;:.    Lowe   v.    Bourbon   County,   6  60  N.  W.  73. 
Kan.  App.  603,  51  Pac.  579;  Hunter 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  567 

clares  that  no  person  shall  be  exempted  therefrom  by  force 
of  any  local  or  private  law.  The  latter  was  held  to  repeal 
all  local  or  private  laws  conferring  such  exemption.77  The 
constitution  of  Arkansas,  adopted  in  1864,  contained  the 
following:  "And  it  is  further  hereby  declared  that  all  laws 
in  force  in  this  state  on  the  4th  day  of  March,  1861,  are  still 
in  force,  not  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  consti- 
tution and  which  have  not  expired  by  limitation  therein 
contained."  This  was  held,  by  implication,  to  repeal  all 
laws  passed  subsequent  to  March  4, 1861.78  Before  the  new 
constitution  of  Ohio  took  effect,  the  legislature  of  that  state 
passed  a  law  authorizing  towns  and  counties,  the  people  as- 
senting, to  subscribe  for  stock  in  railroad  corporations.  A 
clause  in  the  constitution  declares  that  "  the  general  assem- 
bly shall  never  authorize  any  county,  town  or  township  by 
vote  of  its  citizens  or  otherwise  to  become  a  stockholder  in 
any  joint-stock  company  or  corporation."  It  was  held  that 
this  clause  did  not  repeal  the  previous  law.79 

§  291.  Ah  act  to  repeal  a  void  act,— In  State  v.  Field80 
the  question  arose  whether  an  act  to  repeal  a  void  act  was 
itself  valid.  The  act  in  question  purported  to  repeal  the 
void  act  and  to  substitute  a  valid  act  in  its  place.  The  act 
was  sustained  and  the  court  says:  "But  it  is  said  a  void  act 
is  no  law,  and  the  power  to  repeal  does  not  reach  it.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  this  argument  ignores  the  fact  that 
unconstitutional  enactments  are  sometimes  spread  upon  our 
statute  books  and  are  obeyed  by  the  people  and  the  officers 
of  the  law,  and  are  usually  clothed  with  the  semblance  at 
least  of  valid  laws.  They  stand  unchallenged  sometimes 
for  years,  and  then  present  the  gravest  questions  for  the 

77Chidsey  v.  Scranton,  70  Miss.  437;  Van  Hagan,  Ex  parte,  25  id. 

449,  12  So.  545.  426;  Elizabethtown,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

78  Ex  parte  Osborne,  24  Ark.  479;  Elizabethtown,  12  Bush,  233;  Coats 

Mach  v.  Johnson,  59  Ark.  333,  27  S.  v.  Hill,  41  Ark.   149;  Stephens  v. 

W.  231.  Ballou,  27  Kan.  594. 

7«  Cass  v.  Dillon,  2  Ohio  St.  607;        80 119  Mo.  593,  24  S.  W.  752. 
State  ex  rel.  v.  Dudley,  1  Ohio  St. 


i:i  i'!   \i B    ami    REPEA1  [NG    ACTS. 

determination  of  the  courts.  Now,  when  placed  upon  the 
statute  books  by  the  action  of  the  legislature,  why  should 
not  the  same  governmental  agency  remove  them  from  the 
statutes  and  prevent  them  from  becoming  snares  and  pit- 
falls to  the  people  of  the  state.  Surely  it  needs  no  argu- 
ment to  demonstrate  that  the  legislature  has  the  power  to 
see  that  nothing  shall  deface  our  statute  books  that  is  not 
a  law.  .  .  .  Certainly  the  legislature  may  purge  the 
statute  books  of  any  matter  not  lawfully  there.  To  deny 
it  this  power  is  to  ascribe  to  it  a  most  dishonoring  impo- 
tence and  a  disregard  of  the  analogies  of  the  law." 

292.  Construction  of  express  repeals. —  The  repeal- 
ing clause  of  a  statute  is  not  effective  until  the  act  £oes  into 
effect  and  until  then  the  old  law  remains  in  force.81  The 
express  repeal  of  certain  sections  implies  an  intent  not  to 
repeal  other  sections.82  An  act  was  revised  and  repealed 
except  one  section.  This  was  held  not  to  give  any  new 
force  to  that  section,  nor  to  make  it  a  part  of  the  new  act/3 
Where  a  territorial  act  was  amended  by  congress  "so  as  to 
read  as  follows,"  and  as  so  amended  was  approved  and  con- 
firmed, the  territorial  act  was  held  to  be  repealed.81  A  re- 
p"al  of  all  former  acts  on  pleading  and  practice  was  held 
not  to  repeal  an  act  making  the  county  from  which  a  change 
of  venue  is  taken  liable  for  all  expenses  of  the  trial.85  A 
statute  providing  a  remedy  for  an  illegal  tax  was  held  not 
embraced  in  a  general  repeal  of  all  laws  relating  to  assess- 
ments in  an  act  prescribing  and  regulating  the  method  of 
assessing  taxes.86  An  act  fixing  the  compensation  of  county 
commissioners  at  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents  a  clay  and  re- 
pealing all  local  acts  fixing  a  less  per  diem  was  held  not  to 

to  v.  Kearney,  49  Neb.  325,  83 Matter  of  Lampson,  22  Misc. 

S  X.  W.  533,  TO  X.  W.  255.  198,  49  N.  Y.  S.  576. 

tea   v.   Barber  Asphalt  Pav.  84  Murphy  v.  Utter,  186  U.  S.  95, 

Co.,  166  Mo.  671,  6  I  S.  \V.  979;  Curt-  22  S.  E.  Rep.  776,  46  L.  Ed.  1070. 

Wright  v.  Crow,  44  Mo.  App,  563;  85  State  v.  Moore,  121  Ind.  116,  22 

•  v.  Patch,  18  Cal.  438;  State  N.  E.  743. 
v.  Morrow,  v;0  Mo.  181.     See  Burn-  8S  Shear  v.  Commissioners  of  Co- 
ham  v.  Onderdonk,  41  N.  Y.  425.  lurubia,  14  Fla.  146. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  560 

repeal  a  local  act  fixing  a  salary.87  An  act  relating  to  the 
selection  of  jurors  in  counties  of  70,000  population  or  more 
repealed  the  existing  law  on  the  subject  as  to  such  counties, 
with  a  proviso  that  the  former  law  should  remain  in  force 
until  such  time  as  the  county  board  complied  with  the  act. 
Non-compliance  having  been  shown  in  a  given  case  the 
former  law  was  held  to  be  in  force.88  An  act  of  congress 
disapproved  and  annulled  all  acts  of  the  territory  of  Utah 
"  which  establish,  support,  maintain,  shield  or  countenance 
polygamy."  This  was  held  not  to  annul  an  act  providing 
that  illegitimate  children  and  their  mothers  should  inherit 
the  same  as  legitimate  children.89  The  code  of  North  Caro- 
lina provided  that  no  act  of  a  private  or  local  nature  should 
be  construed  to  be  repealed  by  any  section  of  the  code.  It 
was  held  that  no  provision  of  a  private  charter  would  be 
repealed  though  it  was  of  a  public  nature.90  Where  an  act 
states  that  it  is  to  take  the  place  of  statutes  which  have 
failed  in  their  object  and  there  was  only  one  section  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  which  could  have  been  intended,  that  sec- 
tion will  be  held  to  be  repealed,  though  not  necessarily  in- 
consistent.91 An  act  of  March  8,  1893,  in  regard  to  foreign 
corporations  repealed  chapter  21  of  the  laws  of  18S7  on  the 
same  subject.  In  the  revised  code  passed  February  10, 
1895,  chapter  21  was  largely,  though  not  identically,  re- 
enacted.  On  March  13,  1S95,  an  act  was  passed  providing 
that  the  act  of  March  8, 1893,  should  continue  in  full  force 
and  effect.  It  was  held  that  this  did  not  give  any  force  to 
the  section  in  the  latter  act  repealing  chapter  21,  so  as  to 
make  it  operate  on  the  sections  of  the  code  adopted  from 
said  chapter.92     A  general  revenue  law  of  Washington  re- 

"  Commonwealth  v.  Lloyd,  2  Pa.  90  State  v.  Womble,  112  N.  C.  862, 

Supr.  Ct.  6;   affirmed,  178  Pa.  St.  17  S.  E.  491,  19  L.  R.  A.  827. 

808;  Bucks  County  v.  Gill,  5   Pa.  91  Meriwether  v.  Love,  167   Mo. 

Dist.  Ct.  266.  514,  67  S.  W.  250. 

88  Neal  v.  State,  32  Neb.  120,  49  N.  92  State  v.  Potwitt,  17  Mont.  41, 
W.  174.  41  Pac  1004 

89  Cope  v.  Cope,  137  U.  S.  682,  11 
S.  E.  Rep.  222,  34  L  Ed.  832. 


570  REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS. 

pealed  all  arts  and  parts  of  acts  theretofore  enacted  by  the 
iture  of  the  territory  or  state  "providing  for  the  as- 
tent  and  collection  of  taxes1'  in  that  state.  This  was 
held  to  refer  to  laws  operating  generally  in  all  parts  of  the 
Btate  and  not  to  repeal  an  act  on  the  subject  applicable  only 
to  cities  of  the  first  class.03  "Where  the  title  of  a  repealing 
act  describes  the  act  to  be  repealed  it  need  not  be  again  de- 
scribed in  the  body  of  the  act  but  may  be  referred  to  as 
"said  act.'"" 

§  093.  Errors  and  mistakes  in  express  repeals.  — A 
liquor  tax  law  of  New  York  passed  in  1S9G  contained  an 
express  repeal  of  various  acts  including  chapter  744  of  the 
acts  of  1895.  This  act  related  to  a  sewer  in  Rochester  and 
was  amended  at  the  same  session.  Chapter  774  of  the  acts 
of  1895  was  a  liquor  statute.  The  reference  to  chapter  744 
was  held  to  be  a  clerical  mistake  and  the  law  was  held  not 
to  be  repealed.95  An  act  of  "Washington  to  provide  for  the 
reclamation  of  the  state's  granted  school,  tide,  oyster  and 
other  lands  contained  an  express  repeal  of  an  act  relating 
to  arid  lands.  The  former  act  as  passed  did  not  relate  to 
such  lands,  but  it  appeared  that  as  introduced  it  embraced 
the  arid  lands,  but  the  provisions  relating  to  such  lands 
were  stricken  out  of  the  title  and  body  of  the  act  in  course 
of  its  passage  through  the  legislature.  This  was  held  to 
show  that  the  legislature  did  not  intend  to  deal  with  arid 
lands  and  that  the  repealing  clause  was  left  in  by  mistake 
and  should  be  disregarded.96  The  title  of  an  act  was  to 
amend  sections  G43,  G44,  64G  and  G47  of  the  code.  The 
body  of  the  act  amended  these  sections  and  repealed  sec- 
tions 24o,  244,  24G  and  247.  This  was  held  to  be  a  mistake, 
and  the  repealing  clause  was  corrected    by  the  title  and 

te  v.  <  arson, 6  Wash.  850,33  Co.  v.  Williams,  63  App.  Div.  553,. 

Pac.  51  N.  Y.  S.  399;  McKee  Land  &  Imp. 

ings  Bank  v.  Burns,  104  Cal.  Co.  v.  Swikehard,  23  Misc.  21,  51  N. 

Pac.  1".-.    The  body  of  the  Y.  s.  399. 

act  v.                 ,u  1  of  said  act  is  ^Howlettv.  Cheetham,  17  Wash. 

repealed."  636,  50  Pac.  ->22. 

Kee  Land  &  Impnnement 


REPEALS    AND    REPEALING    ACTS.  571 

body  of  the  act  so  as  to  repeal  the  same  sections  as  were 
amended.97 

"A  clause  in  a  statute  purporting  to  repeal  other  statutes 
is  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  interpretation  as  other  enact- 
ments, and  the  intent  must  prevail  over  literal  interpreta- 
tion." 98  An  absolute  repeal  may  be  construed  as  a  qualified 
or  partial  repeal,  where  other  parts  of  the  statute  show 
such  to  have  been  the  real  intent.99 

The  revised  codes  of  North  Dakota  included  a  new  reve- 
nue law  and  expressly  repealed  a  great  number  of  acts  in- 
cluding "chapter  132  of  the  laws  of  1890."  One  section  of 
this  chapter  out  of  a  hundred  or  more  provided  for  the  of- 
fice of  district  assessor  in  unorganized  counties.  If  this 
section  was  repealed  then  there  was  no  provision  in  the  law 
for  levying  a  tax  in  such  counties  and  the  whole  revenue 
law  was  void.  The  new  act  referred  to  the  office  as  an  ex- ' 
isting  one  and  plainly  intended  that  all  property  in  the 
state  should  be  taxed.  It  was  held  that  the  absolute  repeal 
of  the  whole  chapter  should  be  qualified  by  excluding  the 
section  in  question  from  its  operation.1 

97  State  v.  Pierce,  51  Kan.  241,  32  To  give  effect  to  that  purpose  we 
Pac.  924.  must  limit  the  broad  language  of 

98  Smith  v.  People,  47  N.  Y.  330,  the  repealing  act,  so  that  it  will  not 
339;  Home  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Nolan,  defeat  such  purpose.  Not  having 
21  Mont.  205,  53  Pac.  738.  made  provision  in  the  new  revenue 

99  Id.  law  for  the  office  of  district  assessor, 
1  State  v.  Morehouse,  5  N.  D.  406,    and  yet  having  clearly  evinced  a 

67  N.  W.  140.  The  court  says:  "It  purpose  that  property  in  such  terri- 
is  manifest  that  the  broad  letter  of  tory  should  be  assessed,  and  having 
this  repealing  act  is  in  conflict  with  in  terms  referred  to  that  office  and 
the  whole  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  the  district  over  which  the  juris- 
revenue  law  passed  at  the  same  diction  of  a  district  assessor  ex- 
time.  As  both  cannot  stand,  it  is  tended,  it  does  not  admit  of  doubt 
obvious  that  we  must  give  effect  to  that  it  was  never  intended  by  the 
that  which  expresses  the  true  leg-  legislature  that  those  provisions  of 
islative  purpose.  It  is  too  plain  chapter  132  relating  to  the  office  of 
for  argument  that  one  of  the  great  district  assessor,  etc.,  should  be  re- 
purposes  of  the  legislation  was  to  pealed.  To  reach  the  contrary  con- 
provide  for  the  assessment  of  prop-  elusion  would  be  to  impute  to  the 
erty  throughout  the  entire  state,  legislature  a  deliberate  intention. 


BET]  Al  s    AND    Kl  PEALING    ACTS. 


§  294.  Effect  of  B  Statute  and  its  repeal  upon  the  com- 
mon law. —  A  statute  inconsistent  with  the  common  law 
repeals  the  common  law  so  far  as  it  is  inconsistent.2  "If  the 
legislature  undertakes  to  provide  for  the  regulation  of  hu- 
man conduct  in  respect  to  a  specific  matter  or  thing  already 
covered  by  the  common  law,  and  parts  of  which  are  omitted 
from  the  statute,  such  omission  may  be  taken  generally  as 
evidence  of  the  legislative  intent  to  repeal  or  abrogate  the 
same."3  But  an  intention  to  change  the  rule  of  the  com- 
mon law  will  not  be  presumed  from  doubtful  statutory  pro- 
visions; the  presumption  is  that  no  such  change  is  intended 
unless  the  statute  is  explicit  and  clear  in  that  direction.4 
The  common  law  will  be  held  no  further  abrogated  than 
the  clear  import  of  the  language  used  in  the  statute  re- 
quires.5 An  act  provided  that  any  person  who  shall  keep 
a  disorderly  house  shall  on  conviction  thereof  be  punished 
by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  three  hundred 
dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  less  than  ten  days  or  more 
than  six  months.     The  keeping  a  disorderly  house  was  a 


to  pass  an  unconstitutional  law,  for 
its  violation  of  the  state  constitu- 
tion would  be  palpable  if  it  left  a 
portion  of  the  territory  of  the  state 
without  any  legislation  authoriz- 
ing the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes 
therein.  Moreover,  we  must  not 
ignore  the  public  mischief  which 
would  result  from  such  a  construc- 
tion of  the  statute  as  would  de- 
taxation,  not  only  in  these  un- 
organized  townships,  but  through- 
out the  entire  state.  In  a  doubt- 
ful case,  such  consideration  should 
have  great  weight;  but  we  do  not 
i  1  this  case  as  at  all  doubt- 
ful." p.  410.  Compare  People  v. 
Wilraerding,  136  N.  Y.  363,  32  N.  E. 
which  is  stated  in  section  288, 
note  69. 

rgex  v.  Bcrger,  104  Wis.  282, 


80  N.  W.  585,  7G  Am.  St.  Rep.  877; 
Hill  v.  Ginn,  2  Penn.  (Del)  174,  43 
Atl.  608. 

3  In  re  Lord  &  Polk  Chemical  Co., 
7  Del.  Ch.  248,  44  Atl.  775. 

4  McClelland  v.  Hammond,  12 
Colo.  App  82, 54  Pac.  538;  McCarthy 
v.  McCarthy,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
195;  Bozarth  v.  Largent,  128  111. 
95,  21  N.  E.  218;  Deatherage  v. 
Rohrer,  78  III.  App.  248;  Common- 
wealth v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 
104  Ky.  3G6,  47  S.  W.  258;  Beard  v. 
State,  74  Md.  130,  21  Atl.  700;  For- 
rester v.  Boston,  etc.  Min.  Co.,  21 
Mont.  511,  55  Pac.  229,  353;  People 
v.  Palmer,  109  N.  Y.  110,  16  N.  E. 
529;  Smith  v.  Railroad  Co.,  182  Pa. 
St.  139,  37  Atl.  930. 

s  Id. ;  Fitzgerald  v.  Quann,  109  N. 
Y.  441,  17  N.  E.  354. 


KEPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  573- 

common-law  offense  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment,  or 
both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  without  limit.  It  was 
held  that  the  statute  did  not  repeal  the  common  law  as  to 
past  offenses,  and  a  person  convicted  before  the  act  took 
effect  was  sentenced  after  it  took  effect  to  a  fine  of  $1,200 
and  imprisonment  for  thirteen  months  and  the  judgment 
sustained.6  The  repeal  of  a  statute  which  abrogates  the 
common  law  revives  the  common  law,7  even  though  there 
is  a  statute  that  the  repeal  of  a  repealing  act  shall  not  re- 
vive the  act  repealed.8  So  the  repeal  of  an  act  declaratory 
of  the  common  law  leaves  the  common  law  in  force.9 

§  295.  Miscellaneous  points  and  cases.—  The  mere  refer- 
ence to  a  repealed  act  or  section  as  still  in  force,  or  the  sup- 
position or  assumption  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  that 
such  act  or  section  remains  in  force,  does  not  affect  the  re- 
peal or  restore  the  law.10  Where  a  provision  which  excepts- 
a  class  or  specified  localities  from  the  operation  of  the  act  is 
repealed,  the  law  operates  generally  over  the  excepted  class 
or  localities.11     The  enacting  clause  of  a  statute  belongs  no 

6  Beard  v.  State,  74  Md.  130,  21  Compare  State  v.  Morehouse,  5  N. 
Ath  70a  D.  406,  67  N.  W.  140.      In  the  case 

'Mat.ewson  v.  Phoenix  Iron  first  cited  the  court  says:  "But 
Foundry,  20  Fed.  Rep.  281;  State  v.  even  if  congress  had  supposed  that 
Rollins,  8  N.  H.  550;  Gray  v.  Obear,  that  section  was  still  the  law,  when, 
54  Ga.  231;  Lowenberg  v.  People,     as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  had  been  re- 

27  N.  Y.  3:J6.     See  Boismare  v.  His  pealed,  it  would  make  no  difference 

Creditors,  8  La.  315.  in  this  consideration.   The  question 

SBeavan  v.  Went,  155  111.  592,  41  is,  was  said  §  354  repealed  by  the 

N.  E.  91,  31  L.  R,  A.  85;  Baum  v.  act  of  1878?    That  is   a  judicial 

Thorns,  1E0  Ind.  378,  50  N.  E.  357,  question,  to  be  determined  by  the 

6o  Am.  St.  Rep.  368.  courts,  upon  a  proper  construction 

9  Hanlon  v.  Partridge,  69  N.  H.  88,  of  that  section  and  subsequent  leg- 
44  Atl.  807;  Chippewa  Falls  v.  Hop-  islation  upon  the  same  subject- 
kins,  109  Wis.  611,  85  N.  W.  553;  matter,  and  is  not  for  the  legisla- 
Matter  of  Steinway,  31  App.  Div.  tive  branch  of  the  government  to 
70,  52  N.  Y.  S.  313.  determine."    p.  27. 

10  District  of  Columbia  v.  Hut-  u  Heinssen  v.  State,  14  Colo.  228, 
ton,  143  U.  S.  18,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  369,  23  Pac.  995;  Bauen  County  Court 
36  L.  Ed.  60;  People  v.  Wilmerd-  v.  Knislow,  9  Ky.  L.  R.  108;  Pushor 
ing,  136  N.  Y.  363,  32  N.  E.  1099.  v.  Morris,  53  Minn.  325,  53  N.  W. 


574  EBPBAXS    AND   REPEALING    ACTS. 

more  to  the  first  section  of  a  statute  than  to  the  other  sec- 
tions, and  a  repeal  of  the  first  section  does  not  leave  the 
other  sections  without  such  clause.1'-'  A  freeholders' charter 
framed  in  accordance  with  the  constitution  is  held  to  repeal 
prior  in<  onsistent  laws."  A  statute  forbade  the  sale  of  liquors 
within  three  miles  of  an  orphans'  home.  It  was  held  that 
the  burning  of  the  home  and  the  temporary  removal  of  the 
inmates  to  a  place  five  miles  distant  did  not  suspend  the 
operation  of  the  act.11  An  act  imposing  upon  three  cities 
the  duty  of  maintaining  a  bridge  is  not  repealed  by  an  act 
consolidating  them  into  one,  but  the  obligation  passes  to  the 
new  corporation.15  The  mere  omission  of  an  act  from  a  re- 
vision was  held  not  to  repeal  it.16  AVhere  a  town  voted  for 
license  under  a  g<  neral  local  option  law,  a  prohibitory  act 
applicable  to  the  precinct  including  the  town  was  held  to 
be  repealed  as  to  such  town.17  Where  a  law  is  revised  and 
certain  provisions  omitted,  which  had  been  declared  invalid, 
a  repeal  of  all  inconsistent  laws  cannot  be  construed  as  a 
re-enactment  of  the  omitted  provisions,  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  not  inconsistent.1*  Where  one  section  is  dependent 
upon  another,  a  repeal  of  the  latter  destroys  both.19  An 
amendment  to  a  section  or  statute  is  not  necessarily  repealed 
by  a  repeal  of  the  section  or  statute  amended.20  A  joint 
resolution  of  congress  passed  July  7,  1S98,  annexed  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  and  provided  that  the  municipal  legisla- 
tion of  the  Islands,  not  inconsistent  with  the  resolution,  nor 
contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  nor  to  any 

143;   Grand  Isle  v.  Milton,  G8  Vt.  1B  State  v.  Meek,  26  Wash.  405,  67 

35  At i.  71.  Pac.  76. 

i^Pearce  v.  Vittum,  193  111.  102,  «  Lafferty  v.  Hoffman,  00  Ky.  80, 

<il  X.  E.  1110.  35  S.  W.  123,  32  L.  R.  A.  203. 

i  parte  Sparks,  120  Cal.  305,  18  Vance  v.  Vandercook  County, 

52  Par-.  71.1  170  U.  S.  438,  18  S.  C.  Rep.  645,  42 

M  State  v.  P:nringer,  HON.  C.  525,  L.  Ed.  1111. 

14  S.  I..  7-1;  State  v.  Eaves,  108  N.  '''.Stony  Creek  v.  Kabel,  144  Ind. 

18    ! ..  :;70,  8  L.  P.  A.  859.  501.  43  N.  E.  550. 

i  ■•  \\                 I  .'.orge,  21  Ore.  251,  20  State  v.  Young,  30  S.  C.  300,  9 

l(.   iuu.  S.  E.  355;   State  v.  Whitesides,  30 

S.  C.  570,  0  S.  E.  661. 


REPEALS  AND  REPEALING  ACTS.  575 

existing  treaty,  should  remain  in  force  until  congress  should 
otherwise  determine.  Congress  did  not  otherwise  determine 
until  June  14,  1900.  It  was  held  that  the  resolution  did 
not  annul  legislation  permitting  criminals  to  be  tried  on 
information  and  to  be  convicted  by  less  than  the  unanimous 
verdict  of  a  jury,  that  the  intent  was  to  continue  the  exist- 
ing system  of  laws  under  which  civil  and  criminal  justice 
was  administered,  and  that  the  intent  prevailed  over  the 
letter  of  the  resolution.21  Though  the  reason  for  a  statute 
ceases,  the  statute  continues  until  repealed.22 

21  Hawaii  v.  Mankichi,  190  U.  S.        22  State  v.  Eaves,  106  N.  C.  752, 11 
197-  S.  E.  370,  8  L.  R.  A.  259. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

STATUTES  VOID  IN  PART. 

§  '206  (160).  Statutes  may  be  void  in  part  and  good  in 

part. —  In  this  country  legislative  bodies  have  not  an  un- 
limited power  of  legislation.  Constitutions  exist  which 
contain  the  supreme  law.  Statutes  which  contravene  their 
provisions  are  void.  Courts  have  power,  and  they  are 
charged  with  the  judicial  duty,  to  support  the  constitutions 
under  which  they  act  against  legislative  encroachments. 
They  will  declare  void  acts  which  conflict  with  paramount 
laws.1  "Where  a  part  only  of  a  statute  is  unconstitutional, 
and  therefore  void,  the  remainder  may  still  have  effect  under 
certain  conditions.  The  court  is  not  warranted  in  declar- 
ing the  whole  statute  void  unless  all  the  provisions  are  con- 
nected in  subject-matter,  depend  on  each  other,  were  de- 
1  to  operate  for  the  same  purpose,  or  are  otherwise  so 
dependent  in  meaning  that  it  cannot  be  presumed  that  the 
lature  would  have  passed  one  without  the  other.  The 
constitutional  and  unconstitutional  provisions  may  even  b3 
expressed  in  the  same  section,  or  even  in  the  same  sentence, 
and  yet  be  perfectly  distinct  and  separable,  so  that  the  first 
may  stand  though  the  last  fall.2     The  point  or  test  is  not 

1  Scudder  v.   Trenton   Delaware  121;  Hill  v.  Sunderland,  3  Vt.  507; 

Falls  Co.,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  694,  23  Am.  Holden   v.  James,  11  Mass.  396,  0 

Dec.  756;  State  v.  Parkhurst,  9  N.  Am.  Dec.  174. 

J.  L.  427;  Bank  of  Hamilton  v.  Dud-  2  Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168,  28 

.'•ssee,  2  Pet.  492,  7  L.  Ed.  496;  S.  W.  756,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  653,  26 

-mnders,  12  Wheat.  213,  L.  R.  A.  638;  People  v.  Knopf,  183 

6  L.  Ed.  606;  Emerick  v.  Harris,  1  111.  410,  56  N.  E.  155;  State  v.  Dil- 

Bin.  418;  Piscataqua  Bridge  v.  N.  Ion,  32  Fla.  545,  14  So.  383;  Moore 

R  Bridge.  7   N.   H.  35;   Pierce  v.  v.  State,  63  Neb.  345,  88  N.  W.  51  I; 

Kimball,  9  Ma  59;  Goshen  v.  Ston-  State  v.  Westerneld,  23  Nev.  468,  49 

ington,  4  Conn.  225,  10  Am.  Dec.  Pac.  119. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN   PART. 


577 


whether  they  are  contained  in  the  same  section,  for  the  dis- 
tribution into  sections  is  purely  artificial,  but  whether  they 
are  essentially  and  inseparably  connected  in  substance.3  If 
so  connected  the  whole  statute  is  void.4 


3  Treasurer  v.  Bank,  47  Ohio  St. 
503,  523,  25  N.  E.  697;  Common- 
wealth v.  Hitchings,  5  Gray,  482; 
Mobile,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  29 
Ala.  573;  South  &  North  Ala.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Morris,  65  Ala.  193;  State  v. 
Brown,  19  Fla.  563;  Morrison  v. 
State,  40  Ark.  448;  State  v.  Wilson, 
12  Lea,  246;  Tillman  v.  Cocke,  9 
Baxt.  429;  Johnson  v.  Winslow,  63 
N.  C.  552;  Harlan  v.  Sigler,  Morris, 
39;  State  v.  Marsh,  37  Ark.  356; 
State  v.  Kantler,  33  Minn.  69;  S.  C, 
6  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  169; 
American  Print  Works  v.  Law- 
rence, 23  N.  J.  L.  580,  17  Am.  Dec. 
420;  Lea  v.  Bnmm,  83  Pa.  St.  237; 
Bittle  v.  Stuart,  34  Ark.  224;  Na- 
tional Bank  v.  Barber,  24  Kan.  531; 
Darrah  v.  McKim,  2  Hun,  337; 
Berry  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Md.  446,  20 
Am.  Rep.  69;  Fleischner  v.  Chad- 


wick,  5  Ore.  152;  Village  of  Deposit 
v.  Vail,  5  Hun,  310;  State  v.  Clarke, 
54  Mo.  17;  Turner  v.  Board  of  Com- 
missioners, 27  Kan.  314;  State  v. 
Wheeler,  25  Conn.  290;  People  ex 
rel.  v.  Kenney,  96  N.  Y.  294;  Dur- 
yee  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  id.  477;  Matter 
of  Met.  Gas  Light  Co.,  85  id.  527' 
Matter  of  Sackett,  etc.  Streets,  74 
id.  95;  Matter  of  Ryers,  72  id.  1; 
Tiernan  v.  Rinker,  102  U.  S.  123,  26 
L.  Ed.  103;  Powell  v.  State,  69  Ala. 
10;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Tuttle,  53  Wis. 
45,  9  N.  W.  791;  State  v.  Newton, 
59  Ind.  173;  Tripp  v.  Overocker,  7 
Colo.  72,  1  Pac.  595;  Gunnison  Co. 
Com.  v.  Owen,  7  Colo.  467;  People  v. 
Jobs,  id.  475;  People  v.  Hall,  8  id. 
485,  9  Pac.  34;  Cole  v.  Commission- 
ers, 78  Me.  532;  Re  Groff,  21  Neb. 
647;  Frazer,  Ex  parte,  54  Cal.  94. 
In  Curtis  v.  Leavitt,  15  N.  Y.  96, 


4  Yerby  v.  Cochrane,  101  Ala.  541, 
14  So.  355;  Randolph  v.  Builders' 
and  Painters'  Supply  Co.,  106  Ala. 
501,  17  So.  721;  Orange  County  v. 
Harris,  97  Cal.  600,  32  Pac.  594; 
Ballentine  v.  Willey,  3  Idaho,  496; 
Duggan  v.  Peoria,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  42 
111.  App.  536;  Tolley  v.  Courter,  93 
Mich.  469,  53  N.  W.  620;  Attorney- 
General  v.  Gramlich,  129  Mich.  630, 
89  N.  W.  446;  Board  of  Education 
v.  Moses,  51  Neb.  288,  70  N.  W.  946; 
Ex  parte  Hewlett,  22  Nev.  333,  40 
Pac.  96;  Johnson  v.  State,  59  N.  J. 
L.  271,  35  Atl.  787;  Johnson  v.  State, 
59  N.  J.  L.  535,  37  Atl.  949,  38  L.  R. 
A.  373;  Smeath  v.  Mager,  64  N.  J. 
37 


L.  94,  44  Atl.  983;  McArdle  v.  Jer- 
sey City,  66  N.  J.  L.  590,  49  Atl. 
1013,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  496;  New 
York  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  143  N. 
Y.  1,  37  N.  E.  494;  Rathbone  v. 
Wirth,  150  N.  Y.  459,  44  N.  E.  1124, 
34  L.  R.  A.  408;  Angell  v.  Cass 
County,  11  N.  D.  265,  91  N.  W.  72; 
State  v.  Bradt,  103  Tenn.  584,  53  S. 
W.  942;  Kimbrough  v.  Barnett,  93 
Tex.  301,  55  S.  W.  120;  Skagit 
County  v.  Stiles,  10  Wash.  3SN,  39 
Pac.  116;  Connolly  v.  Union  Sewer 
Pipe  Co.,  184  U.  S.  540,  22  S.  C.  Rep. 
431,  46  L.  Ed.  679;  Loeb  v.  Colum 
bia  Tp,  91  Fed.  37;  Union  Sewe* 
Pipe  Co.  v.  Connelly,  99  Fad.  354. 


61ATI/TES    VOID    IN    PAST. 


If  one  provision  of  an  enactment  is  invalid  and  the  others 
valid,  the  latter  are  not  affected  by  the  void  provision,  un- 
less they  are  plainly  dependent  upon  each  other,  and  so  in- 
separably connected  that  they  cannot  be  divided  without 
defeating  the  object  of  the  statute.4  And  the  converse  is 
true.  The  vicious  part  must  bo  distinct  and  separable,  and, 
when  stricken  out,  enough  must  remain  to  be  a  complete 
apable  of  being  carried  into  effect,  and  sufficient  to  ac- 
complish the  object  of  the  law  as  passed,  in  accordance  with 
the  intention  of  the  legislature.5    It  should  be  confined  to 


Comstock,  J.,  said:  "A  doctrine 
which  is  expressed  in  the  words 
•void  in  part,  void  in  toto.'  has  often 
found,  its  way  into  books  and  judi- 
cial opinions  as  descriptive  of  the 
i  which  a  statute  may  have 
upon  deeds  and  other  instruments 
which  have  in  them  some  forbidden 
vice.  There  is,  however,  no  such 
general  principle  of  law  as  the 
maxim  would  seem  to  indicate.  On 
the  co'  trary,  the  general  rule  is 
that  if  the  good  be  mixed  with  the 
bad  it  shall  nevertheless  stand,  pro- 
vided a  separation  can  be  made. 
The  exceptions  are,  first,  where  a 
statute  by  its  express  terms  de- 
clares the  whole  deed  or  contract 
void  on  account  of  some  provision 
which  is  unlawful;  and  second, 
where  there  is  some  all-pervading 
vice,  such  as  fraud,  for  example, 
which  is  condemned  by  the  com- 
mon law,  and  avoids  all  parts  of 
the  transaction  because  all  are 
alike  infected." 

4  Duryee  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  96  N.  Y. 
■>::-,  Re  Groff,  21  Neb.  647. 

5  The  following  cases  sustain  the 
general  principles  stated,  and  in 
each  case  the  act  in  question  was 
held  to  be  severable  and  the  valid 


part  was  sustained  as  an  act  com- 
plete in  itself:  Bradley  v.  State,  99 
Ala.  177,  13  So.  415:  Keutz  v.  Mo- 
bile, 120  Ala,  623, 24  So.  952;  Browne 
v.  -Mobile,  122  Ala.  159,  25  So.  223; 
State  v.  Davis,  130  Ala.  148,  30  So. 
344,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  23;  Leep  v. 
Railway  Co.,  58  Ark.  407,  25  S.  W. 
75,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  109,  23  L.  R.  A. 
264;  Gray  v.  Matheny,  66  Ark.  36,  48 
S.  W.  678;  McGowan  v.  McDonald, 
111  Cal.  57,  43  Pac.  418,  52  Am.  St, 
Rep.  149;  Murphy  v.  Pacific  Bank, 
119  Cal.  334,  51  Pac.  317;  Johnson 
v.  Tautphaus,  127  Cal.  605,  60  Pac. 
172;  English  v.  State,  31  Fla.  340, 
12  So.  689;  State  v.  Dillon,  32  Fla. 
515,  14  So.  383;  Ex  parte  Pitts,  35 
Fla.  149,  17  So.  76;  Irwin  v.  Greg- 
ory, 86  Ga.  605, 13  S.  E.  120;  Gaines- 
ville v.  Simmons,  96  Ga.  477,  23  S. 
E.  508;  People  v.  Illinois  State  Re- 
formatory, 148  I1L  413,  36  N.  R  76; 
Ritchie  v.  People,  155  I1L  98,  40  N. 
E.  454,  462,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  315,  29 
L.  R.  A.  79:  People  v.  Knopf,  183 
111.  410,  50  N.  E.  155;  Smith  v.  Mc- 
Clain,  146  Ind.  77,  45  N.  E.  41; 
Townsend  v.  State,  147  Ind.  624,  47 
N.  E.  19,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  37  L. 
R.  A.  294;  State  v.  Ray,  153  Ind. 
334,  54  N.  E.  1067;  Missouri,  Kan. 


STATUTES    VOID   IN   PART. 


579 


the  same  limits  and  still  subject  to  the  intended  qualifi- 
cations.6 
§  297  (170).  General  rules  and  principles. —  It  may  be 

laid  down  generally  as  a  sound  proposition  that  one  part  of 
a  statute  cannot  be  declared  void  and  leave  any  other  part 
in  force,  unless  the  statute  is  so  composite,  consisting  of  such 
separable  parts,  that,  when  the  void  part  is  eliminated,  an- 
other living,  tangible  part  remains,  capable  by  its  own  terms 
of  being  carried  into  effect,  consistently  with  the  intent  of 
the  legislature  which  enacted  it  in  connection  with  the  void 


&  Tex.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Simonson,  64 
Kan.  802,  68  Pac.  653,  91  Am.  St. 
Rep.  248;  Hardy  v.  Kingman  Coun- 
ty, 65  Kan.  Ill,  68  Pac.  1078;  State 
v.  Goff,  106  La.  270,  80  So.  844;  Gra- 
ham v.  Muskegon  County  Clerk,  116 
Mich.  571,  74  N.  W.  729;  Moreland 
v.  Millen,  12G  Mich.  381,  85  N.  W. 
882;  Belding  Land  &  Imp.  Co.  v. 
Belding,  128  Mich.  79,87  N.  W.  113; 
Stotz  v.  Thompson,  44  Minn.  271, 
46  N.  W.  410;  Reimer  v.  Newel,  47 
Minn.  237,  49  N.  W.  865;  State  v. 
Sullivan,  72  Minn.  126,  75  N.  W.  8; 
State  v.  Justus,  85  Minn.  279,  88  N. 
W.  759,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  550;  North- 
western Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lewis 
&  Clark  County,  28  Mont.  484; 
Moore  v.  State,  6:J  Neb.  345,  88  N. 
W.  514;  State  v.  Humboldt  County 
Com'rs,  21  Nov.  235,  29  Pac.  974; 
State  v.  Westerfield,  23  Nev.  468,  49 
Pac.  119;  State  v.  Franklin,  59  N. 
J.  L.  106,  34  Atl.  1088;  Lawton  v. 
Steele,  119  N.  Y.  226,  23  N.  E.  878, 
16  Am.  St.  Rep.  813,  7  L.  R.  A.  134; 
Matter  of  New  York  &  L.  I.  Bridge 
Co.,  148  N.  Y.  540,  42  N.  E.  1088; 
Bohmer  v.  Haffen,  161  N.  Y.  390, 
55  N.  E.  1047;  McCless  v.  Meekins, 
117  N.  C.  34,  23  S.  E.  99;  Rothermel 
v.  Meyerle,  136  Pa.  St.  250,  20  Atl. 
583,  9  L.  R.  A.  36G;  Commonwealth 


v.  Moir,  199  Pa.  St.  534,  49  Atl.  351, 
85  Am.  St.  Rep.  801;  Philadelphia, 
M.  &  S.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  Petitioner,  203 
Pa.  St.  854,  53  Atl.  191;  Treasurer 
v.  Bank,  47  Ohio  St.  503,  25  N.  E. 
697;  State  v.  Russell,  20  Ohio  C.  C. 
551;  State  v.  Clark,  15  R.  I.  383,  5 
Atl.  635;  State  v.  Cummins,  99 
Tenn.  667,  42  S.  W.  880;  Grebble  v. 
Wilson,  101  Tenn.  612,  49  S.  W.736; 
Zwerneman  v.  Van  Rosenberg,  76 
Tex.  522,  13  S.  W.  485;  People  v. 
Clayton,  4  Utah,  421,  11  Pac.  206; 
State  v.  Kibling,  63  Vt.  636,  22  Atl. 
613;  Carter  v.  Commonwealth,  96 
Va.  791,  32  S.  E.  780,  45  L.  R.  A.  310; 
Danville  v.  Hatcher,  101  Va.  523; 
State  v.  Henry,  28  Wash.  38,  68 
Pac.  368;  Baker  v.  State,  80  Wis. 
416,  50  N.  W.  518;  Bittenhaus  v. 
Johnston,  92  Wis.  588, 66  N.  W.  805, 
32  L.  R.  A.  380;  Field  v.  Clark,  143 
U.  S.  649,  12  S.  C.  Rep.  495,  36  L. 
Ed.  294;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  L.  & 
T.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  14  S.  C.  Rep. 
1047,  38  L.  Ed.  1014;  Busch  v. 
Webb,  122  Fed.  655. 

6Meshmeier  v.  State,  11  Ind.  485; 
Burkholtz  v.  State,  16  Lea,  71;  Bit- 
tie  v.  Stuart,  34  Ark.  224;  Allen  v. 
Louisiana,  103  U.  S.  80,  26  L.  Ed. 
318;  People  v.  Porter,  90  N.  Y.  68. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 

part.  "  If  the  legislative  purpose  as  expressed  in  the  valid 
portions  of  the  act  can  be  accomplished,  independently  of 
the  unconstitutional  portion,  and,  considering  the  entire  act, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  the  legislature  would  not  have  passed 
did  portion  had  it  been  known  that  the  invalid  por- 
tion must  fail,  effect  will  be  given  to  so  much  as  is  good."7 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  obvious  that  the  legislature  did 
not  intend  that  any  part  should  have  effect  unless  the  whole, 
including  the  part  held  void,  should  operate,  then  holding 
a  part  void  invalidates  the  entire  statute.  "If  all  the  pro- 
visions of  an  act  are  so  interwoven  as  to  be  incapable  of 
distinct  separation,  or  are  of  such  a  character  that  it  cannot 
be  said  that  the  legislature  intended  that  the  valid  parts 
shall  be  enforced  if  the  other  parts  fail,  the  entire  law  will 
be  held  to  be  invalid."8  If  the  obnoxious  section  or  part  is 
of  such  import  that  the  other  sections  or  parts  without  it 
would  cause  results  not  contemplated  or  desired  by  the  leg- 
islature, then  the  entire  statute  must  be  held  inoperative.9 

If  a  statute  attempts  to  accomplish  two  or  more  objects, 
or  to  deal  with  two  or  more  independent  subjects,  and  the 
provisions  as  to  one  are  void,  it  may  still  be  in  every  respect 
complete  and  valid  as  to  any  other.10     Illustrations  of  this 

"English  v.  State,  31  Fla.  340,  12  Ballentine  v.  Willey,  3  Idaho,  496, 

So.  689.     "If  the  court  can  see  and  21  Pac.  994;  Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R. 

say  that  the  act.  in  the  form  in  Co.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  361,  37  N.  E. 

which  it  is  left  with  the  obnoxious  247,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  278,  24  L.  R.  A. 

portions  excised,  is  still  such  an  141;  Rothermel  v.  Meyerle,  136  Pa. 

act  as  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  St.  250,  20  Atl.  583,  9  L.  R.  A.  366. 

legislature  would  have  passed  had  8  Johnson  v.  State,  59  N.  J.  L.  271, 

it  known   that  certain   provisions  27:5,35  Atl.  787;  S.  C.  affirmed,  59 

were   void,  the  remainder,  under  N.  J.  L.  535,  37  Atl.  949,  38  L.  R.  A. 

well-settled  rules  of  construction,  373. 

may  stand."    Dwyer  v.  Parker,  115  9  Connolly  v.  Union  Sewer  Pipe 

544, 47  Par.  372.    See  also  liar-  Co.,  184  U.  S.  540,  565,  22  S.  C.  Rep. 

..  State,  109  Ala.  28,  19  So.  857;  431,  46  L.  Ed.  679. 

Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala.  66,  19  So.  *">  People  v.  Cooper,   83  111.  585; 

901;  Newman    v.  People,  23  Colo.  Towles,  Ex  parte,  48  Tex.  413;  State 

78;  Branch    v.   Lew-  v.  Clinton,  28  La.  Ann.  201;  Wells, 

erenz,  75   Conn.   319,  53   Atl.  058;  Ex  parte,  21  Fla.  280;  Hinzo  v.  Peo- 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 


5S1 


proposition  are  furnished  by  numerous  cases  where  acts  are 
violative  of  the  constitutional  injunction  that  an  act  shall 
relate  to  but  one  subject,  which  shall  be  stated  in  the  title. 
If  the  act  embraces  more  than  one  subject,  and  one  is  stated 
in  the  title,  it  is  valid  as  to  that  subject  if  complete  in  itself, 
but  void  as  to  any  other.  The  elimination  of  the  latter 
leaves  a  constitutional  act,  where  there  is  no  interdependence 
between  the  subjects.11  If  the  matter  of  the  act  foreign  to 
the  subject  stated  in  the  title  is  divisible  from  that  which 
is  clearly  within  the  title,  and  the  latter  can  stand  and  have 
effect  without  the  former,  then  only  so  much  of  the  act  as 
is  not  embraced  in  the  title  is  void.12  But  otherwise  the 
whole  act  is  void.13 


pie,  92  111.  406;  Lombard  v.  Antioch 
College,  60  Wis.  459,  19  N.  W.  367; 
Sparrow  v.  Commissioner  of  Land 
Office,  56  Mich.  567,  23  N.  W.  315; 
People  v.  Luby,  56  Mich.  551,  23  N. 
W.  218;  Bittenhaus  v.  Johnston, 
92  Wis.  588,  66  N.  W.  805,  32  L.  R. 
A.  380;  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  649, 
12  S.  C.  Rep.  495,  36  L.  Ed.  294. 

11  People  v.  Hall,  8  Colo.  485,  9 
Pac  34;  State  v.  Hurds,  19  Neb.  317; 
Whited  v.  Lewis,  25  La.  Ann.  568; 
Gibson  v.  Belcher,  1  Bush,  145; 
Jones  v.  Thompson,  12  id.  394; 
Fuqua  v.  Mullen,  13  Bush,  467; 
Harris  v.  Supervisors,  33  Hun,  279; 
Mississippi,  etc.  Co.  v.  Prince,  34 
Minn.  79;  Municipality  No.  3  v. 
Michoud,  6  La.  Ann.  (105;  State  v. 
Exnicius,  33  id.  253;  State  v.  Crow- 
ley,  3:}  id.  782;  State  v.  Dalon,  35  id. 
1141;  Dorsey's  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St. 
192;  Thomason,  Ex  parte,  16  Neb. 
238;  Davis  v.  State,  7  Md.  151. 


12  Unity  v.  Burrage,  103  U.  S.  447, 
26  L.  Ed.  405;  Moore,  Ex  parte,  63 
Ala.  471;    Walker  v.  State,  49  id. 
329;  Lowndes  County  v.    Hunter, 
49  id.  507;  Shields  v.  Bennett,  8  W. 
Va.  74;   Matter  of  Sackett  St.,  74 
N.  Y.  95;  Mewherter  v.  Price,  11 
Ind.  199;  Bucky  v.  Willard,  16  Fla. 
330;  State  v.   Wilson,  7  Ind.  516; 
Packet  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  95  U.  S.  80, 
24  L.  Ed.  377;  Matter  of  De  Vau- 
cene,  31  How.  Pr.  341;   Harris  v. 
Supervisors,  33  Hun,  279;  Rader  v. 
Township  of  Union,  39  N.  J.  L.  509; 
Colwell  v.  Chamberlin,  43  id.  387; 
Matter  of  Van  Antwerp,  56  N.  Y. 
261 ;  People  ex  rel.  v.  Briggs,  50  id. 
553;    Fleischner    v.    Chad  wick,    5 
Ore.  152;  Matter  of  Paul,  94  N.  Y. 
497;  Dewhurst  v.  City  of  Allegheny, 
95    Pa.    St.    437;     Allegheny    Co. 
Home's  Case,  77  Pa.  St.  77;  Lea  v. 
Bumm,  83  Pa.  St.  237;    Town   of 
Fishkill  v.  Fishkill,  etc.  Plk.  R.  Co., 


13Yerby  v.  Cochrane,  101  Ala. 
541,  14  So.  355;  Elliott  v.  State,  91 
Ga.  694,  17  S.  E.  1004;  State  v.  Fer- 
guson, 104  La.  249,  28  So.  917,  81 
Am.  St.  Rep.  123;  State  v.  Atkins, 


104  La.  37,28  So.  919;  State  v.  Walker, 

105  La.  492,  29  So.  973;  Tolley  v. 
Courter,  93  Mich.  469,  53  N.  W.  G20; 
Trumble  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  340, 
55  N.  W.  869. 


5S2 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    TART. 


A  corporate  charter  is  not  entirely  vitiated  because  it  pro- 
vides unconstitutional lv  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  for  certain  purposes,14  or  unconstitutionally 
icts  the  rijrht  to  vote  for  officers.15  Parts  relating:  to 
detail  incident  to  the  main  purpose  of  an  act  may  be 
stricken  out  without  prejudice  to  the  remainder  of  it,  which 
contains  valid  provisions  amply  sufficient  to  enable  the  cor- 
poration to  fully  perform  all  its  functions,  unless  vital  to 
the  main  purpose  as  means  or  as  compensation.16  Where  a 
new  offense  is  created  and  procedure  for  punishment  pro- 
vided, if  the  latter  is  invalid,  and  there  are  general  laws 
under  which  prosecutions  for  such  an  offense  could  be  con- 
ducted,  the  invalidity  of  the  part  relating  to  the  procedure 
will  not  affect  the  part  creating  the  offense.17    An  act  re- 


22  Barb.  634;  State  v.  Clarke,  54 
Mo.  17;  Savannah,  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Geiger,  21  Fla.  669,  58  Am.  Rep. 
697  : 1  allaghan  v.  Chipman,59  Mich. 
610,  26  X.  W.  806;  State  v.  Persin- 
ger,  76  Mo.  346;  Stiefel  v.  Mary- 
Ian. 1  Institute,  61  Md.  144;  Wyn- 
koop  v.  Cooch,  89  Pa  St.  450;  Ex 
parte  Cowert,  92  Ala.  94,  9  So.  225; 
Bradley  v.  State,  99  Ala.  177, 13  So. 
415;  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala.  28, 

,  857;  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala. 
66,  19  So.  901;  State  v.  Davis,  130 
Ala.  148,  30  So.  344,  89  Am.  St.  Rep. 

I  ullen  v.  Glendora  Water  Co., 
113  Ca!.  503,  39  Pac.  769,  45  Pac. 
822,1047;  Hancock  v.  State,  114  Ga. 
:-.  Ritchie  v.  People, 
155  111.  98,  40  N.  E.  454,  460.  46  Am. 
St.  Rep.  315,  29  L.  R  A.  79;  Dixon 
v.   Poe,  159  Ind.  492,  65  X.  E.  518; 

iken  v.  State,  88  Md.  708,  42 

212;  Belding  Land  &  Imp.  Co. 
v.  Belding,  128  Mich.  79,  87  N.  W. 
113;  State  v.  ('ounty  Court,  102  Mo. 
531,  15  s.  W.  79;  State  v.  Courtney, 
27  Blent  378,  71  Pac.  308;  State  v. 


Humboldt  County  Com'rs,  21  Nev. 
235,  29  Pac.  974;  Jones  v.  Morris- 
town,  66  N.  J.  L.  488,  49  Atl.  440; 
Parfitt  v.  Ferguson,  3  App.  Div.  176, 
38  N.  Y.  S.  466;  Commonwealth  v. 
Ayers,  2  Pa.  Supr.  Ct.  35a 

14  Morgan  v.  Monmouth  Plank  R. 
Co.,  26  N.  J.  L.  99;  Matter  of  Vil- 
lage of  Middleton,  82  N.  Y.  196. 

15  State  ex  rel.  v.  Tuttle,  53  Wis. 
45.  9  N.  W.  791;  People  ex  rel.  v. 
Kenney,  96  N.  Y.  294 

16  Id.;  Phillips  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  1 
Hilt.  483;  State  v.  Elizabeth.  40  N. 
J.  L.  278;  Wakeley  v.  Mohr,  15 
Wis.  609;  State  v.  Rosenstock,  11 
Nev.  128;  Robinson  v.  Bidwell,  22 
Cal.  379;  Board  of  Com.  v.  Silvers, 
22  Ind.  491;  Turner  v.  Board  of 
Commissioners,  27  Kan.  314;  Mat- 
ter, etc.  of  Village  of  Middleton,  82 
N.  Y.  196;  Gordon  v.  Cornes,  47  id. 
617;  Zwerneman  v.  Van  Rosenberg, 
76  Tex.  522,  13  S.  W.  485.  See  post r 
£298. 

»  State  v.  Newton,  59  Ind.  173. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART.  583 

districting  a  county  for  supervisors  was  held  valid,  though 
it  unconstitutionally  provided  that  incumbents  should  hold 
over  beyond  their  election  terms  until  they  could  be  imme- 
diately succeeded  by  supervisors  elected  under  the  act.18 
The  powers  of  a  judicial  officer  are  so  separable  and  inde- 
pendent that  a  grant  of  them  may  be  void  as  to  one  part  or 
subject  and  good  as  to  others.19  An  act  providing  for  im- 
pounding cattle  taken  damage  feasant,  and  for  detention  of 
them  until  costs  and  damages  are  paid,  may  be  sustained, 
though  it  include  a  void  provision  for  a  summary  sale  of 
such  cattle.20  A  statute  which  prohibits  traffic  in  intoxicat- 
ing liquors,  provides  penalties  therefor,  and  also  forfeiture 
of  liquors  kept  for  sale,  and  the  vessels  in  which  the  same 
are  kept,  is  not  an  entirety.  The  forfeiture  clause  may  be 
held  unconstitutional,  and  the  remainder  nevertheless  be 
sustained.21 

In  Skagit  County  v.  Stiles  22  the  court  says:  "In  deter- 
mining whether  part  of  an  act  can  stand  where  another  part 
has  been  held  unconstitutional,  a  different  rule  as  to  pre- 
sumptions is  recognized  from  that  which  obtains  where  the 
whole  act  is  being  considered.  The  general  rule  that  legis- 
lative acts  are  primarily  presumed  to  be  constitutional,  and 
that  all  intendments  are  to  be  made  in  favor  of  the  act  to 
give  it  effect  according  to  the  intent  of  the  lawmaking 
power,  does  not  apply  in  such  cases,  as  the  upholding  of  part 
of  an  act  is  not  favored ;  and  where  a  part  has  been°held  un- 
constitutional, and  the  remaining  portion  comes  up  for  con- 
sideration as  to  whether  it  can  stand  as  an  independent 
proposition,  the  presumptions  are  generally  against  it,  and 
it  will  not  be  sustained  unless  that  which  remains  is  com- 
plete in  itself  and  capable  of  being  executed  in  accordance 

w  Christy  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  Wilcox  v.  Hemming,  58  Wis.  144, 

39  Cal-  3-  159,  46  Am.  Rep.  625. 

M  Mayor,  etc.  v.  Dechert,  32  Md.  «  State  v.  Wheeler,  25  Conn.  290- 

369;  Reid  v.  Morton,  119  111.  118,  6  Fisher  v.  McGirr,  1  Gray,  1. 

N-  E'  4U-  22 10  Wash.  388,  39  Pac.116. 

20  Rood  v.  McCargar,  49  Cal.  117; 


.'•-I  BTAT1  ir-    VOID    IN    PABT. 

with  the  apparent  legislative  intent  wholly  independent  of 
that  which  was  rejected." 

£  298  (171).  Rule  when  physical  severance  is  impossi- 
ble—  Whether  words  and  provisions  can  he  severed  in 
their  application  or  scope. —  In  most  cases  which  arise 
where  statutes  are  void  in  part  only,  the  void  part  consists 
of  distinct  sections  or  provisions  which  can  be  literally  and 
physically  separated  from  the  remainder,  and  such  remain- 
der can  be  read  independently  of  the  void  part.  But  some- 
times the  provisions  of  a  statute  are  valid  as  applied  to  cer- 
tain cases  or  objects  and  invalid  as  applied  to  others,  and 
the  question  arises  whether  such  a  statute  is  void  in  toto 
because  it  embraces  too  much,  or  whether  it  will  be  con- 
strued as  applying-  only  to  the  objects  and  cases  within  the 
power  of  the  legislature  and  so  upheld  as  valid  legislation. 
The  supreme  court  of  Xew  Hampshire,  in  an  opinion  often 
id  with  approval,  lays  down  the  following  rule  on  the 
subject:  "The  rule  of  construction  universally  adopted  is 
that  when  a  statute  may  constitutionally  operate  upon  cer- 
tain persons,  or  in  certain  cases,  and  was  not  evidently 
intended  to  conflict  with  the  constitution,  it  is  not  to  be  held 
unconstitutional  merely  because  there  may  be  persons  to 
whom,  or  cases  in  which,  it  cannot  constitutionally  apply; 
but  it  is  to  be  deemed  constitutional  and  to  be  construed 
not  to  apply  to  the  latter  persons  or  cases,  on  the  ground 
that  courts  are  bound  to  presume  that  the  legislature  did 
not  intend  to  violate  the  constitution." 2i  The  supreme  court 
of  Kansas  says  that  the  rule  that  only  the  invalid  parts  of 
a  statute  are  ineffective  is  not  confined  to  cases  where  the 
invalid  parts  consist  of  separable  words,  clauses,  sentences 
ctions  which  may  be  literally  stricken  out,  as  it  were, 
but  that  "it  applies  as  well  to  exclude  from  the  operation 
of  the  statute  subjects  and  classes  of  things  lying  without 
the  legislative  intent,  although  comprehended  within  the 

mion  of  the  Justices,  41  N.    Northrup  v.  Iloyt,  31  Ore.  524,  49 
H.   555,   quoted  and  approved  in    Pac.  754. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 


5S5 


general  terms  of  the  act,  as  it  does  to  exclude  parts  of  the 
verbal  phraseology." 24  In  Eailroad  Companies  v.  Schutte 25 
the  court  said  the  striking  out  of  the  void  part  is  not  neces- 
sarily "  by  erasing  words,  but  it  may  be  by  disregarding  the 
unconstitutional  provision,  and  reading  the  statute  as  though 
that  provision  was  not  there."  Many  cases  are  of  the  same 
purport.26  These  views  are  in  accordance  with  the  general 
rule  that  a  statute  will  be  so  construed,  if  possible,  as  not 
to  violate  the  constitution,27  as  well  as  with  the  rule  that 
the  words  of  an  act  will  be  restrained  or  limited  by  its  title, 
so  as  not  to  apply  to  persons  or  cases  not  expressed  in  the 
title.28 

A  statute  which  had  the  effect  of  regulating  both  state 
and  interstate  commerce  in  the  same  provision  was  held 
valid  as  to  the  former  and  void  as  to  the  latter.29  But  where 
such  an  act  exacts  a  license  fee  of  common  carriers  based 
upon  the  total  amount  of  business  done  in  each  county, 
which  was  made  up  in  part  of  interstate  and  in  part  of  state 


24  State  v.  Smiley,  65  Kan.  240,  69 
Pac.  199. 

™  103  U.  S.  118,  142,  26  L.  Ed.  327. 

26  Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168,28 
S.  W.  756,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  653,  26 
L.  R.  A.  638;  State  v.  McGowan, 
138  Mo.  1S7,  39  S.  W.  771;  Citizens' 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Graham,  147  Mo.  250, 
48  S.  W.  910;  State  v.  Mines,  38  W. 
Va.  125,  18  S.  E.  470;  State  v.  Fack- 
ler,  91  Wis.  418,  64  N.  W.  1029; 
United  States  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R. 
Co.,  118  U.  S.  235,  6  S.  C.  Rep.  1038, 
30  L.  Ed.  173;  Packet  Co.  v.  Keo- 
kuk, 95  IT.  S.  80,  24  L.  Ed.  377; 
Freight  Tax  Case,  15  Wall.  232; 
Supervisors  v.  Stanley,  105  U.  S. 
305,  313,  314,  26  L.  Ed.  1044;  McCul- 
lough  v.  Virginia,  172  U.  S.  102,  19 
S.  C.  Rep.  134,  43  L.  Ed.  382.  And 
see  Austin  v.  The  Aldermen,  7 
Wall.  694,  19  L.  Ed.  224;  Bull  v. 
Rowe,  13  S.   C.  355;  McCready  v. 


Sexton,  29  Iowa,  356,  4  Am.  Rep. 
214;  Hiss  v.  Baltimore,  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  52  Md.  242,  36  Am.  Rep.  371 ; 
Franklin  v.  Westfall,  27  Kan.  614; 
Western  Union  TeL  Co.  v.  State, 
62  Tex.  630. 

2'Ante,  §83;  post,  §498. 

28  State  v.  Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co., 
99  Ala.  221, 13  So.  362;  Bell  v.  State, 
91  Ga.  227,  18  S.  E.  288;  Comer  v. 
State,  103  Ga.  69,  29  S.  E.  501;  Pitts- 
burg v.  Reynolds,  48  Kan.  360,  29 
Pac.  757;  Commonwealth  v.  Barney, 
24  Ky.  L.  R.  2352, 74  S.  W.  181 ;  Allen 
v.  Bernards  Tp,  57  N.  J.L.  303, 31  At). 
219;  State  v.  State,  57  N.  J.  L.  348, 
30  Atl.  480;  Cooper  v.  Springer,  65 
N.  J.  L.  594,  48  Atl.  605. 

2i»  State  v.  Scott,  98  Tenn.  254,  39 
S.  W.  1,  36  L.  R.  A.  461;  Austin  v. 
State,  101  Tenn.  563,  48  S.  W.  305, 
70  Am.  St.  Rep.  703,  50  L.  R.  A.  478; 
Freight  Tax  Case,  15  Wall.  232. 


Si  All  ITS    VOID    IN    PART. 


business,  it  was  held  that  there  could  be  no  separation,  and 
the  provision  was  held  void  in  its  entirety.30  Where  the 
constitution  forbade  an  appropriation  for  a  longer  term  than 
two  years,  a  statute  making  an  appropriation  for  a  longer 
term  was  held  good  for  two  years.31  A  statute  authorizing 
municipalities  to  become  indebted  beyond  the  constitutional 
limit  was  held  effectual  to  authorize  the  creation  of  a  debt 
not  exceeding  the  limit  fixed  by  the  constitution.32  The 
constitution  of  Nebraska  authorized  the  commitment  to  the 
reform  school  of  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age.  A 
statute  authorized  the  commitment  of  children  under 
eighteen.  It  was  held  valid  as  to  those  within  the  constitu- 
tional age.33  Where  the  constitution  limits  the  term  of  an 
office  to  a  specified  number  of  years,  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  an  act  creating  an  office  and  provid- 
ing for  a  longer  term  is  valid  for  the  maximum  term  fixed 
by  the  constitution,  or  whether  it  is  void  in  that  respect. 
Some  courts  hold  to  the  former  alternative.34     Others  hold 


30 State  v.  Northern  Pac.  Express 
Co.,  27  Mont.  419,  71  Pac.  404. 

si  Pickle  v.  Finley,  91  Tex.  484,  44 
s.  W.  480. 

«Dunn  v.  Great  Falls,  13  Mont. 
58,  31  Pac.  1017;  Ger mania  Sav. 
Bank  v.  Darlington,  50  S.  C.  337,  27 
S.  E.  8  JO. 

3-  Scott  v.  Flowers,  61  Neb.  620,  85 
N.  W.  857.  In  this  case  the  court 
says:  "The  legislature  has  here 
clearly  expressed  its  will,  but  it  has 
gone  too  far;  it  has  transcended 
tlie  limits  of  its  authority.  It  lias, 
in  an  unmistakable  manner,  signi- 
fied its  purpose  not  only  to  author- 
ize the  commitment  to  the  reform 
school  of  certain  children  under 
ige  of  sixteen  years,  but,  also, 
children  beyond  that  age  who,  al- 
_-h  guiltless  of  crime,  have 
■1  a  criminal  tendency  and 
are    without   proper    parental   re- 


straint. The  legislature  having 
declared  its  will,  and  its  command 
to  the  courts  being  in  part  valid 
and  in  part  void,  the  decisive  ques- 
tion is,  shall  section  5  be  given  ef- 
fect so  far  as  it  is  in  accord  and 
agreement  with  the  paramount 
law  ?  It  seems  that  both  good  sense 
and  judicial  authority  require  that 
the  question  should  receive  an  af- 
firmative answer."    p.  624 

3-1  Sinking  Fund  Coua'rs  v.  George, 
104  Ky.  260, 47  S.  W.  779,  84  Am.  St. 
Rep.  454;  State  v.  Stuht,  52  Neb. 
209,  71  X.  W.  941.  In  the  former 
case  an  act  created  a  board  of  peni- 
tentiary commissioners  and  pro- 
vided  that,  of  the  first  board,  one 
should  hold  for  two  years,  one  for 
four  years  and  one  for  six  years 
and  that  their  successors  should  be 
elected  for  --ix  years.  The  constitu- 
tion forbade  the  creation  of  offices- 


STATUTES    VOID    IN   PAET. 


58T 


that  the  provision  fixing  the  term  is  void  altogether.  Of 
these,  some,  again,  hold  that  the  remainder  of  the  act  is 
valid,  and  that  the  officer  provided  for  holds  during  the 
pleasure  of  the  appointing  power,35  while  others  hold  the 
entire  act  void.36 

A  statute  of  Indiana  regulating  the  liability  of  railroads 
and  other  corporations  and  doing  away  with  the  fellow- 
servant  rule  was  held  by  the  supreme  court  of  that  state  to 
be  valid  as  to  railroads  whether  valid  as  to  other  corpora- 
tions or  not.37  The  claim  was  that  it  was  class  legislation 
as  applied  to  other  corporations,  as  it  would  subject  indi- 
viduals and  corporations  in  the  same  business  and  under 
the  same  circumstances  to  different  rules  of  liability.  The 
same  statute  was  sustained  as  to  railroads  by  the  supreme 


with  a  longer  term  than  four  years. 
The  act  was  held  to  create  a  four- 
year  term  and  to  be  valid  as  so 
modified.  The  court  says:  "The 
language  employed  shows  that  the 
general  assembly  was  willing  that 
one  of  the  commissioners  should 
hold  his  office  for  six  years  —  two 
years  longer  than  the  constitution 
will  permit.  As  the  general  as- 
sembly expressed  a  willingness  that 
one  of  the  commissioners  should 
hold  for  two  years  longer  than  the 
constitution  permits,  it  is  certainly 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  it  was 
the  will  of  that  body  that  the  com- 
missioners should  hold  for  four 
years,  as  this  term  is  necessarily 
included  in  the  longer  one  which 
it  fixed.  To  hold  the  act  void  in  so 
far  as  it  makes  the  term  six  years 
instead  of  four,  still  the  balance  of 
the  act  is  complete  and  enforceable. 
The  purpose  and  intent  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly,  that  the  commission- 
ers should  manage  and  control  the 
penitentiaries,  can  be  effectuated 


by  eliminating  from  the  act  that 
part  which  attempted  to  make 
terms  six  instead  of  four  years." 
And  see  People  v.  Burch,  84  Mich. 
408,  47  N.  W.  765. 

85  People  v.  Perry,  79  Cal.  105,  21 
Pac.  423;  Lewis  v.  Lewelling,  53 
Kan.  201,  36  Pac.  351,  23  L.  R.  A. 
510.  In  the  former  case  the  court 
says:  "But  we  know  of  no  preced- 
ent for  holding  that  a  clause  of  a 
statute,  which  as  enacted  is  un- 
constitutional, may  be  changed  in 
meaning  in  order  to  give  it  some 
operation,  when  admittedly  it  can- 
not operate  as  the  legislature  in- 
tended. This  would,  it  seems  to 
us,  be  making  a  law,  and  not  merely 
correcting  an  excess  of  authority.  ' 
p.  115. 

36  State  v.  Harris,  19  Nev.  222,  8 
Pac.  462;  Kimbrough  v.  Barnett, 
93  Tex.  301,  55  S.  W.  120. 

37  Pittsburgh,  C,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Montgomery,  152  Ind.  1,  49 
N.  E.  582,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  301. 


-I  A  I  1    IIS    VOID    IN     PAST. 

court  o(  the  United  States  on  the  ground  that  the  effect  of 
the  Indiana  derision  was  to  hold  that  the  statute  was  capa- 
ble of  severance.1"  A  similar  statute  was  held  void  alto- 
gether by  the  supreme  court  of  Mississippi  in  a  very  clabo- 
rate  opinion  in  which  many  eases  are  reviewed.  The  stat- 
ute in  question  originally  applied  only  to  railroads  and  was 
amended  so  as  to  apply  to  all  corporations.  It  was  argued 
that  it  should  be  construed  as  applicable  only  to  corpora- 
tions engaged  in  a  hazardous  business  like  that  of  railroads 
and  as  so  restricted  should  be  sustained.  The  court  held 
that  it  could  not  limit  the  statute  in  this  manner,  and  in  re- 
spect to  the  doctrine  of  severance  says:  " The  difficulty  is 
in  finding  the  true  test  as  to  when  a  statute  may  be  severed ; 
that  test  clearly  is  this:  That  whenever  the  court  finds  on 
the  face  of  a  statute  a  number  of  different  provisions,  some 
constitutional  and  some  unconstitutional,  there  it  may  sever, 
if  they  are  not  interdependent,  between  these  provisions, 
striking  out  the  unconstitutional;  and,  let  it  be  marked, 
that  in  every  such  case  there  is  something  to  sever  between 
on  the  face  of  the  statute.  That  is  what  is  meant  by  the 
severance  of  a  statute.  But  whenever  a  court,  in  order  to 
uphold  the  provisions  of  a  statute  as  constitutional,  has  to 
interpolate  in  such  statute  provisions  not  put  there  by  the 
legislature,  in  order  by  such  interpolation  to  make  the  pro- 
vision which  the  legislature  did  put  there  constitutional, 
this  is  no  case  of  severance  in  any  proper  legal  sense;  nor 
is  it  in  any  legal  or  logical  sense  a  proper  limitation  of  the 
provisions  which  are  in  a  statute  by  judicial  construction. 
Such  action  by  a  court  is  nothing  less  than  judicial  legisla- 
tion pure  and  simple."31' 

299  172).  The  same  question  in  case  of  criminal  stat- 
ntes. —  But  the  rule  is  more  stringent  in  regard  to  criminal 
statutes.  As  said  by  Johnson,  J.,  in  AVynehamer  v.  Peo- 
ple:40 "Laws  in  relation  to  civil  rights  are  sometimes  held 

■<s  Tullis  v.  Lake  Erie  &  \V.  R.  R.        »'»  Ballard  v.  Miss.  Cotton  Oil  Co., 
SO  S.  C.  Rep.  136,     81  Misa  507,  573,  574,  U4  So.  533. 
}4  L.  Ed.  193.  *<>  13  N.  Y.  378,  425. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART.  589' 

to  be  unconstitutional,  in  so  far  as  they  affect  the  rights  of 
certain  persons,  and  valid  in  respect  to  others.  This  is  done 
mainty  upon  the  ground  that  the  courts  will  not  construe 
them  to  relate  to  such  cases  as  the  legislature  had  not  power 
to  act  upon.  To  statutes  creating  criminal  offenses,  such  a 
rule  of  construction  ought  not  to  be  applied,  and  I  cannot 
find  any  trace  of  its  ever  having  been  applied.  It  is  of  the 
highest  importance  to  the  administration  of  criminal  justice 
that  acts  creating  crimes  should  be  certain  in  their  terms 
and  plain  in  their  application;  and  it  would  be  in  no  small 
degree  unseemly  that  courts  should  be  called  upon,  in  ad- 
ministering the  criminal  law,  to  adjudge  an  act  creating  of- 
fenses at  one  time  valid,  and  at  another  time  void.  It  must, 
I  think,  stand  as  it  has  been  enacted,  or  not  stand  at  all." 
A  law  void  as  to  certain  property  (intoxicating  liquors)  al- 
ready possessed  at  the  passage  of  the  law,  but  which  would 
be  valid  if  confined  to  such  property  subsequently  acquired, 
is  wholly  void,  being  general  so  as  to  include  both  in  penal 
destruction  of  value.41  Where  the  constitution  fixed  the 
limit  of  punishment  by  fine  imposed  by  a  justice  of  the 
peace  at  $3,  and  the  legislature  provided  for  a  fine  not  ex- 
ceeding $20  in  such  cases,  the  statute  was  held  valid  to  the 
constitutional  limit  of  $3,  and  void  beyond  that  sum.42  The 
excess  was  easily  ascertained,  and  divisible  from  the  amount 
authorized.  And  though  the  void  part  could  not  be  lit- 
erally stricken  out  without  changing  the  letter  of  the 
statute,  it  could  be  excluded  with  no  less  certainty  and  pre- 
cision. 

§  300  (173).  In  United  States  v.  Eeese43  it  was  held  that 
the  power  of  congress  to  legislate  at  all  upon  the  subject  of 
voting  at  state  elections  rests  upon  the  fifteenth  amendment 
to  the  federal  constitution,  and  can  be  exercised  by  provid- 
ing a  punishment  only  when  the  wrongful  refusal  to  receive 
the  vote  of  a  qualified  elector  at  such  election  is  because  of 
his  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.     A  con- 

«  Wyneharaer  v.  People,  13  N.  Y.        «  Clark  v.  Ellis,  2  Blackf.  8. 
378,  425.  «  92  U.  S.  214,  23  L.  Ed.  566. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 

ional  enactment  not  confined  in  its  operation  to  unlaw- 
ful discrimination  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  con- 
dition ol'  servitude  transcends  the  constitutional  limit,  and 
is  unauthorized.  "Waite,  0.  J.,  said:  "We  are  therefore 
directly  called  upon  to  decide  whether  a  penal  statute  en- 
acted  by  congress,  with  its  limited  powers,  which  is  in  gen- 
eral language  broad  enough  to  cover  wrongful  acts  without 
as  well  as  within  the  constitutional  jurisdiction,  can  be  lim- 
ited by  judicial  construction  so  as  to  make  it  operate  only 
on  that  which  congress  may  rightfully  prohibit  and  punish. 
For  this  purpose  we  must  take  these  sections  of  the  statute 
;is  they  are.     We  are  not  able  to  reject  a  part  which  is  un- 

titutional  and  retain  the  remainder,  because  it  is  not 
possible  to  separate  that  which  is  unconstitutional,  if  there 
iv  such,  from  that  which  is  not.  The  proposed  effect 
is  not  to  be  attained  by  striking  out  or  disregarding  words 
that  are  in  the  section,  but  by  inserting  those  that  are  not 
now  there.  Each  of  the  sections  must  stand  as  a  whole  or 
fall  altogether.  The  language  is  plain.  There  is  no  room 
for  construction,  unless  it  be  as  to  the  effect  of  the  constitu- 
tion. The  question,  then,  to  be  determined  is  whether  we 
can  introduce  words  of  limitation  into  a  penal  statute  so  as 
to  make  it  specific,  when,  as  expressed,  it  is  general  only. 
It  would  certainly  be  dangerous  if  the  legislature  could  set 
a  net  large  enough  to  catch  all  possible  offenders,  and  leave 
it  to  the  courts  to  step  inside  and  say  who  could  be  right- 
fully detained  and  who  should  be  set  at  large.  This  would, 
to  some  extent,  substitute  the  judicial  for  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government.     The  courts ' enforce  the 

dative  will  when  ascertained,  if  within  the  constitu- 
tional  grant  of  power.  ...  To  limit  this  statute  in  the 
manner  now  asked  would  be  to  make  a  new  law,  not  to  en- 
force an  old  one.  That  is  no  part  of  our  duty."  This  view 
has  been  repeatedly  approved  in  subsequent  cases.44    Where 

"  United  States  v.  Harris,  10G  U.     Virginia  Coupon  Cases,  114  U.  S. 
S.  629,  27   L.  Ed.  290;  Trade  Mark    305,  29  L.  Ed.  185. 
Cases,  100  U.  S.  82,  25   L.  Ed.  550;        In  Baldwin  v.  Franks,  120  U.  S. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 


591 


t,  statute  forbade  the  sale  of  all  kinds  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
and  was  void  as  to  some  such  liquors,  it  was  held  to  be 
wholly  void.45     To  be  separable  for  the  purpose  of  sustain- 


•678,  7  S.  C.  Rep.  656,  703,  30  L.  Ed. 
766.  the  plaintiff  had  been  in  cus- 
tody on  a  charge  of  violating  an 
act  of  congress  which  provided  for 
punishment  of  those  who  "in  any- 
state  or  territory  conspire,  ,  .  . 
for  the  purpose  of  depriving,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  any  person 
or  class  of  persons  of  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws  or  of  equal  priv- 
ileges or  immunities  under  the 
laws."  Sec.  5519,  R.  S.  U.  S.  Waite, 
C.  J.,  said:  "In  United  States  v. 
Harris,  supra,  it  was  decided  that 
this  section  was  unconstitutional 
as  a  provision  for  the  punishment 
of  conspiracies  of  the  character 
therein  mentioned  within  a  state. 
It  is  now  said,  however,  that  in  that 
case  the  conspiracy  charged  was  by 
persons  in  a  state  against  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
state,  to  deprive  him  of  the  protec- 
tion he  was  entitled  to  under  the 
laws  of  that  state,  no  special  rights 
or  privileges  arising  under  the  con- 
stitution, laws  or  treaties  of  the 
United  States  being  involved;  and 
it  is  argued  that  although  the  sec- 
tion be  invalid  so  far  as  such  an 
offense  is  concerned,  it  is  good  for 
the  punishment  of  those  who  con- 
spire to  deprive  aliens  of  the  right 
guaranteed  to  them  in  a  state  by 
the  treaties  of  the  United  States. 
In  support  of  this  argument  re- 
liance is  had  on  the  well  settled 
rule  that  a  statute  may  be  in  part 
constitutional  and  in  part  uncon- 
stitutional, and  that  under  some 
circumstances  tho  part  which  is 


constitutional  will  be  enforced, 
and  only  that  which  is  unconstitu- 
tional will  be  rejected.  To  give 
effect  to  this  rule,  however,  the 
parts — that  which  is  constitu- 
tional and  that  which  is  unconsti- 
tutional —  must  be  capable  of  sepa- 
ration, so  that  each  may  be  read  by 
itself.  This  statute,  considered  as 
a  statute  punishing  conspiracies  in 
a  state,  is  not  of  that  character,  for 
in  that  connection  it  has  no  parts 
within  the  meaning  of  the  rule. 
Whether  it  is  separable  so  that  it 
can  be  enforced  in  a  territory, 
though  not  in  a  state,  is  quite  an- 
other question,  and  one  we  are  not 
now  called  on  to  decide.  It  pro- 
vides in  general  terms  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  all  who  conspire  for  the 
purpose  of  depriving  any  person,  or 
any  class  of  persons,  of  the  equal 
protection  of  the  laws  or  of  equal 
privileges  or  immunities  under  the 
laws.  A  single  provision,  which 
makes  up  the  whole  section,  em- 
braces those  who  conspire  against 
citizens  as  well  as  those  who  con- 
spire against  aliens;  those  who 
conspire  to  deprive  one  of  his 
rights  under  the  laws  of  a  state 
and  those  who  conspire  to  deprive 
him  of  his  rights  under  the  consti- 
tution, laws  or  treaties  of  the 
United  States.  The  limitation 
which  is  sought  must  be  made,  if 
at  all,  by  construction,  not  by  sep- 
aration. This,  it  has  often  been 
decided,  is  not  enough." 

«  Elliott   v.  State,  91   Ga,  694.  17 
S.   E.  1004;  Papworth  v.  State,  103 


592  STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART. 

ing  the  remainder  of  the  act,  such  remainder  must  be  com- 
in  itself  and  sullicicnt  to  accomplish  the  legislative 
intent  without  aid  from  the  void  part.48 
§  301  (174).  The  main  purpose  being  unconstitutional 

the  whole  act  void. —  Where  all  the  provisions  of  an  act 
are  connected  as  parts  of  a  single  scheme,  the  incidental 
i  >r  dependent  provisions  must  fall  with  the  failure  of  the  main 
purpose.47  That  which  is  merely  auxiliary  to  the  main 
design  must  fall  with  the  principal  to  which  it  is  merely  an 
incident.45  If  only  one  object  is  aimed  at,  and  that  is  un- 
constitutional, and  all  the  provisions  are  contributory  to 
that  object,  and  were  enacted  solely  for  that  reason,  the 
whole  act  is  void.49  An  act  provided  for  a  new  police  dis- 
trict, and  police  justice,  with  exclusive  jurisdiction  not  only 
of  new  offenses  created  by  the  same  act,  but  of  matters 
previously  cognizable  by  other  courts.  As  the  creation  of 
the  new  district  and  court  were  essential  to  accomplish  tin- 
purpose  of  the  act,  and  that  part  of  it  being  held  uncon- 
stitutional, the  whole  act  was  void.50  Where  the  entire 
s  heme  must  fail  because  of  a  want  of  power  to  enact  it, 

Ga.  30,  31  S.  E.  402;  Harris  v.  State,  133;    Eckhart  v.  State,  5  W.  Va. 

11  1  Ga.  436,  40  S.  E.  315.  515;    Brooks  v.  Hydoon,  76  Mich. 

^  Allen  v.  Louisiana,  103 U.  S.  80,  273,  43  N.  W.  1122;  Blades  v.  Board 

36  L  Ed  318;  People  v.  Porter,  90  of  Water  Com'rs,  122  Mich.  366,  81 

N.  Y.  68;   Hinze   v.  People,  92  111.  N.  W.  271:  State  v.  Stephens,  14(5 

406;  Towles,  Ex  parte,  48  Tex.  413;  Mo.  602,48  S.  W.  929,  69  Am.  St. 

Bittle  v.  Stuart,  34  Ark.  224;  Black  Rep.  625;  Grey  v.  Dover,  62  N.  J.  L. 

v.   Trower.   79    Va.  123;    State   v.  40,  40  Atl.  640;  Dover  v.  Grey,  62 

Duke.  42  Tex.  455.  N.  J.  L.  647,  42  Atl.  674. 

«  Randolph  v.  Builders'  &  Paint-        s<>  People   v.  Porter,  90  N.  Y.  68: 

era'  Supply  Co.,  106  Ala,  501,  17  So.  Reed  v.  Omnibus  R.  R  Co.,  33  Cal. 

721;  Orange  County  v.  Harris,  97  212;  Kelley  v.  State.  6  Ohio  St.  269: 

Cal.  600, 32  Pac.  594;  Jones  v.  Jones,  SumterCo.  v.  Gainesville  Nat  Bank, 

104  N.  Y.  234,  10  N.  E.  269;  Black  62  Ala.  464,  34  Am.  Rep.  30;  State 

v.  Trower,  7'.)  Va.  123.  v.    Chamberlin,  37    N.  J.    L.  388; 

*s  Virginia  Coupon  Cases,  114  U.  Lathrop    v.    Mills,    19    CaL     513; 

S.  270,  304,  5  S.  C.  Rep.  903,  29  L.  Dells   v.   Kennedy,  49  Wis.  555,  6 

El.  185.  N.  W.  246,  381,  35  Am.    Rep.  786; 

<9 Darby  v.  Wilmington,  76  N.  C.  Slinger  v.  Henneman,  38  Wis.  504. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART.  593 

there  can  be  no  possible  good  in  upholding  an  isolated  pro- 
vision which  it  was,  perhaps,  competent  for  the  law-giver  to 
enact,  but  which  is  unreasonable  and  unjust  if  left  to  stand 
alone.51 

§  302  (175).  A  law  is  entire  where  each  part  has  a  gen- 
eral influence  over  the  rest,  and  all  are  intended  to  operate 
together  for  one  purpose.  In  such  case  the  invalidity  of 
that  purpose  will  affect  the  whole  act.52  Nevertheless  if 
only  one  incidental  provision  is  invalid,  that  may  not  ren- 
der the  whole  act  void.53  It  is  not  entire  in  that  sense.51 
Where  a  repeal  of  prior  laws  is  inserted  in  an  act  in  order 
to  the  unobstructed  operation  of  such  act,  and  it  is  held  un- 
constitutional, the  incidental  provision  for  the  repeal  of 
prior  laws  will  fall  with  it.55  An  act  was  passed  to  dis- 
solve municipal  corporations  and  provided  the  manner  in 
which  they  might  re-incorporate.  The  latter  was  the  ob- 
ject of  the  enactment,  and  that  being  held  unconstitutional 
the  former  was  also  invalid.56  In  such  cases  the  object 
of  the  legislature  is  frustrated;  when  the  void  part  is  elim- 
inated, there  is  not  a  complete  act  remaining  expressive  of 
the  intent  of  the  legislature  and  sufficient  to  carry  it  into 
effect.57 

si  Fant  v.  Gibbs,  54  Miss.  396, 411.  54  Ante,  §  306. 

52  Second  Municipality  v.  Mor-  S3Quinlon  v.  Rogers,  12  Mich.  168 
gan,  1  La.  Ann.  Ill;  Powell  v.  State  v.  Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  L, 
State,  69  Ala.  10;  Towles,  Ex  parte,  320;  Childs  v.  Shower,  18  Iowa,  26 1 
48  Tex.  413;  Neely  v.  State,4Baxt.  Randolph  v.  Builders'  &  Painters 
174.  Supply  Co.,  106  Ala.  501,  17  So.  721 

53  Bradley  v.  State,  99  Ala.  177, 13  Carr  v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  26  N.  E, 
So.  415;  Wilson  v.  State,  136  Ala.  778,  11  L.  R  A.  370;  Fesler  v.  Bray 
114.  33  So.  831;  Cullen  v.  Gleudora  ton,  145  Ind.  71,  44  N.  E.  37;  Bar- 
Water  Co.,  113  Cal.  503,  39  Pac.  769,  ringer  v.  Florence,  41  S.  C.  501,  19 
45  Pao.  822,  1047;  Alexander  v.  Du-  S.  E.  745;  ante,  §  245.  But  see 
luth,  57  Minn.  47,  58  N.  W.  866;  Equitable  Guaranty  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
State  v.  County  Cdurt,  102  Mo.  531,  Donahoe,  3  Penn.  (Del.)  191,  49  Atl. 
15  S.  w!  79;  State  v.  Franklin,  59  372. 

N.  J.  L.  106,   34  Atl.  1088;  English  *«  State    v.    Stark,    18  Fla.   255; 

&  Scottish  Am.  Mort.  Co.  v.  Hardy,  Quinlon  v.  Rogers,  12  Mich.  168. 

93  Tex.  289,  55  S.  W.  169.  "  Towles,  Ex  parte,  48  Tex.  413. 
38 


59  I  SI  A  I  C  IKs     \  OID     IN     TAUT. 

§  'MM  (176).  Where  t lie  void  part  is  inducement  to  or 
consideration  of  residue  of  act.— A  leading  case  on  this 
subject  is  Warren  v.  Mayor,  etc.88  In  that  case  was  involved 
the  validity  of  a  statute  for  the  annexation  of  the  city  of 
(  harlestown  to  the  city  of  Hoston.  There  were  provisions 
intended  to  secure  to  the  inhabitants  of  Charlestown  certain 
.institutional  rights  of  representation  in  the  legislature  un- 
til the  time  when  they  could  enjoy  them  within  the  city  of 
Boston.  Some  years  must  elapse  before  that  time.  The 
provisions  to  secure  such  rights  during  the  interval  were  held 
unconstitutional,  and  therefore  that  the  whole  act  was  void. 
Shaw,  C.  J.,  said:  "  If  [the  parts  of  the  act]  are  so  mutually 
connected  with  and  dependent  on  each  other,  as  conditions, 
considerations  or  compensations  for  each  other,  as  to  war- 
rant a  belief  that  the  legislature  intended  them  as  a  whole, 
and  that,  if  all  could  not  be  carried  into  effect,  the  legisla- 
ture would  not  pass  the  residue  independently,  and  some 
parts  are  unconstitutional,  all  the  provisions  which  are  thus 
dependent,  conditional  and  connected  must  fall  with  them." 
••  The  object  of  the  act  is  the  annexation;  the  merger  of  one 
municipality  and  the  enlargement  of  the  other.  This  must 
necessarily  affect  the  municipal  and  political  rights  of  the 
inhabitants  of  both,  guaranteed  as  they  are  by  the  constitu- 
tion. The  legislature  manifestly  felt  it  to  be  their  duty,  in 
accomplishing  this  object,  to  make  provision  for  the  preser- 
vation of  these  constitutional  rights;  if  this  object  is  not 
effectually  accomplished,  we  have  no  ground  on  which  to 
infer  that  the  legislature  would  have  sanctioned  such  an- 
nexation and  its  consequences.  The  various  provisions  of 
the  act,  therefore,  all  providing  for  the  consequences  of  such 
annexation,  more  or  less  immediate  or  remote,  are  connected 
and  dependent;  the  different  provisions  of  the  act  look  to 
object  and  its  incidents,  and  are  so  connected  with  each 
other  that,  if  its  essential  provisions  are  repugnant  to  the 
constitution,  the  entire  act  must  be  deemed  unconstitutional 

53  2  Gray,  34 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART.  505 

and  void."  The  doctrine  of  this  case  has  been  generally 
approved  and  acted  upon.59 

"  If  the  void  part  of  the  act  is  the  compensation  for  or 
the  inducement  to  the  valid  portion,  so  that,  looking  at  the 
whole  act,  it  is  reasonably  clear  that  the  legislative  body 
would  not  have  enacted  the  valid  portion  alone,  then  the 
whole  act  will  be  held  inoperative  and  void."60  "It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  invalid  portion  of  "in  act  of  the  legisla- 
ture should  have  operated  as  the  sole  inducement  to  the 
passage  of  the  law  to  render  the  same  void.  It  will  have 
that  effect  if  the  void  part  to  any  extent  influenced  the  leg- 
islature in  passing  the  statute."61 

§  304  (177).  Same  — Illustrations. — An  act  created  an 
office  and  defined  the  powers  and  duties  as  well  as  fixed  the 
compensation  of  the  incumbent.  The  part  which  defined 
the  powers  and  duties  violated  a  constitutional  rule  of  uni- 
formity and  was  held  void;  this  part  being  inducement  to 
the  residue  fixing  the  compensation,  the  latter  was  held 
void  also.62  So  where  a  statute  annexed  to  a  city  certain 
lands  lying  outside  of  its  limits,  but  contained  a  proviso 
that  the  lands  so  annexed  should  be  taxed  at  a  different 
and  less  rate  than  other  lands  in  the  city,  and  this  proviso 
was  unconstitutional,  the  principle  under  consideration  was 

«>  Commonwealth  v.  Hitchings,  5  211,  74  N.  W.  615;  Crawford  Corn- 
Gray,  482;  Jones  v.  Robbins,  S  pany  v.  Hathaway.  60  Neb.  754,  84 
Gray,  329,  339;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Com-  N.  W.  271;  S.  C.  on  rehearing,  61 
missioners,  etc.,  5  Ohio  St.  497;  Neb.  317,  85  N.  W.  303;  Weaver  v. 
State  v.  Sinks,  42  Ohio  St.  345;  Davidson  County,  104  Tenn.  315,  59 
Central  Branch  Union  P.  R.  Co.  v.  S.  W.  1105;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L. 
Atchison,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Kan.  &  T.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  601, 15  S.  C.  Rep. 
453:  S.  C,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  R  R.  Cas.  912,  39  L.  Ed.  1108;  Robertson  v. 
528;  Rood  v.  McCargar,  49  Cat  117;  Preston,  97  Va.  296,  33  S.  E.  618. 
State  v.  Stark,  18  Fla.  255;  Spar-  «°  Gilbert-Arnold  Land  Co.  v.  Su- 
hawk  v.  Sparhawk,  116  Mass.  315,  perior,  91  Wis.  353, 357, 64  N.  W.  999. 
320;  People  v.  Cooper,  83  111.  585;  «i  State  v.  Cornell,  59  Neb.  417, 
Hinze  v.  People,  92  111.  406;  Conk-  434,  81  N.  W.  431. 
lin  v.  Hutchinson,  65  Kfln.  582,  70  "State  ex  reL  v.  Dousman,  28 
Pac.  587;  State  v.  Bowen,  54  Neb.  Wis.  541. 


596  I  US    VOID    IN    PABT. 

held  applicable,  and  the  act  was  inoperative.65  Where,  how- 
ever, a  statute  gave  authority  to  municipalities  competi- 
tively to  make  proposals  to  procure  the  location  therein  of 
a  normal  school,  and  gave  power  of  local  taxation  to  carry 
accepted  proposals  into  effect,  the  latter  provision  was  not 
affected  by  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  appropriation 
made  in  the  act  for  the  support  of  such  schools.  The  court 
held  that  by  establishing  the  schools  and  inducing  contri- 
butions from  others,  the  legislature  assumed  the  duty  of 
supporting  them;  the  particular  provision,  which  it  has  at- 
tempted to  make  for  that  purpose  being  objectionable,  it 
must  be  assumed  that  the  legislature  will  regard  it  as  their 
duty  to  provide  a  substitute.64 

§  :><>.">  (178).  The  valid  part  must  be  complete  and  ac- 
cord with  the  legislative  intent. —  One  part  of  a  statute 
may  be  distinct  in  the  text  and  literally  separable  from  the 
rest,  and  yet  be  indissolubly  connected  with  it  in  the  legis- 
lative intent.  The  mere  fact  that  one  part  standing  alone 
would  be  within  the  scope  of  the  legislative  power  does  not 
necessarily  prove  that  it  can  be  upheld  when  coupled  with 
other  matter.  The  court  in  Meshmeier  v.  State65  uttered 
sound  logic  and  sound  law:  "It  would  seem  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  statute  held  to  be  constitutional  should  be 
substantally  the  same  when  considered  by  themselves  as 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  other  parts  of  the  stat- 
ute held  to  be  unconstitutional;  or,  in  other  words,  where 
that  part  of  a  statute  which  is  unconstitutional  so  limits 
and  qualifies  the  remaining  portion  that  the  latter,  when 
stripped  of  such  unconstitutional  provisions,  is  essentially 
different,  in  its  effect  and  operation,  from  what  it  would  be 
were  the  whole  law  valid,  it  would  seem  that  the  whole 
law  should   fall.     The   remaining  portion  of  the  statute, 

"Slauson  v.  Racine,  13  Wis.  398;  The  latter  overrules  Westport  v. 

Jones  v.  Memphis,  101   Tenn.  188,  McGce,  128  Ma  152,  30  S.  W.  523, 

IT  s.  W.  138;  <  bpeland  v.  St.  Joseph,  which  holds  a  contrary  doctrine. 

136  Mo.  417,  29  S.  W.  281;  State  v.  «4  Gordon  v.  Cornes,  47  N.  Y.  008. 

Wardell,  153  Mo.  319,  54  S.  W.  574.  C5  II  Ind.  482,  485. 


STATUTES   VOID    IN    PART.  597 

when  thus  stripped  of  its  limitations  and  qualifications,  can- 
not have  the  force  of  law,  because  it  is  not  an  expression  of 
the  legislative  will.  The  legislature  pass  an  entire  statute, 
on  the  supposition,  of  course,  that  it  is  all  valid  and  to  take 
effect.  The  courts  find  some  of  its  essential  elements  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution;  strip  it  of  those  elements, 
and  leave  the  remaining  portion  mutilated  and  transformed 
into  a  different  thing  from  what  it  was  when  it  left  the 
hands  of  the  legislature.  The  statute  thus  emasculated  is 
not  a  creature  of  the  legislature;  and  it  would  be  an  act  of 
legislation  on  the  part  of  the  court  to  put  it  in  force."66 

§  306  (179).  Effect  of  void  exceptions,  provisos,  restric- 
tions, etc. —  If,  by  striking  out  a  void  exception,  proviso  or 
other  restrictive  clause,  the  remainder,  by  reason  of  its  gen- 
erality, will  have  a  broader  scope  as  to  subject  or  territory, 
its  operation  is  not  in  accord  with  the  legislative  intent,  and 
the  whole  would  be  affected  and  made  void  by  the  invalid- 
ity of  such  part.67 

An  act  of  a  general  nature  which  the  constitution  re- 
quired to  have  a  uniform  operation  throughout  the  state 
excepted  certain  counties  from  its  operation.  This  rendered 
the  whole  act  void.  After  striking  out  the  exception,  if  the 
general  words  gave  the  act  operation  in  the  excepted  coun- 
ts To  same  effect:  State  v.  Davis,     Sheriff,  48  Minn.  286.  51  N.  W.  112, 

130  Ala.  148,  30  So.  344,  89  Am.  St.  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  650;  Low  v.  Rees 
Rep.  23;  Dwyer  v.  Parker,  115  Cal.  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb.  127,  59  N.  W. 
544,  47  Pac.  372;  Kiernan  v.  Swan,     362,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  670,  24  L.  R.  A. 

131  Cal.  410,  63  Pac.  768;  State  v.  702;  Edmonds  v.  Herbrandson,  2N. 
Dillon,  32  Fla.  545, 14 So.  S83;  Ritchie  D.  270.  50  N.  W.  970. 14  L.  R  A.  725; 
v.  People,  155  111.  98,  40  N.  E.  454,  State  v.  Buckley,  60  Ohio  St,  273,54 
462,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  315,  29  L.  R.  A.  N.  E.  272;  Gilreath  v.  Greenville 
79;  Smith  v.  McClain,  146  Ind.  77,  County,  63  S.  C.  75,  40  S.  E.  1028; 
45  N.  E.  41;  Ex  parte  Hewlett,  22  Connolly  v.  Union  Sewer  Pipe  Co., 
Nev.  333,  40  Pac.  96;  State  v.  Becker,  184  U.  S.  510,  22  S.  C.  Rep.  431. 
3S.  D.  29,  5i  N.  W.  1018.  46  L.  Ed.  679:  Commonwealth    v. 

67  Marsh  v.  Han  ley,  111  Cal.  368,  Petranich,  18:5  Mass.  217.  66   X.  E. 

43  Pac.  975;  Mathews  v.  People,  203  807;  Schumacher   v.   McCallep,  69 

111.  389,  07  N.  E.  28;  State  v.  Mitch-  Ohio  St.  500. 
ell,  97  Me.  66,  53  Atl.  887;  State  v. 


STA'll  rES    VOID    IN    PART. 

ties,  suoh  effect  would  be  directly  contrary  to  the  expressed 
intent  of  the  law-maker.68  An  act  relating  to  elections  in 
3  of  certain  classes  excepted  from  its  operation  "Mans- 
field and  cities  of  the  fourth  grade  in  the  first  class."  This 
exception  was  held  to  make  the  act  local  and  special,  and 
it  was  also  held  that  the  exception  could  not  be  stricken  out 
and  the  remainder  of  the  act  stand.  The  court  says:  "It 
is  urged,  however,  that  if  this  exception  makes  the  act  un- 
constitutional,  the  exception  should  be  disregarded,  and  the 
act  held  valid  as  operating  uniformly  throughout  the  state. 
The  answer  to  this  is  that  the  court  has  no  law-making 
power,  and  cannot  extend  a  statute  over  territory  from 
which  it  is  excluded  by  the  general  assembly.  A  court  can 
hold  a  whole  act  unconstitutional  because  it  is  not  broad 
enough,  that  is,  because  it  is  not  of  uniform  operation 
throughout  the  state;  but  it  cannot  extend  an  act  which  is 
too  narrow,  so  as  to  take  in  territory  which  was  left  out  by 
general  assembly.  In  the  case  of  an  exception,  the  gen- 
eral assembly  never  enacted  it  in  the  excepted  territory,  and 
the  court  has  no  power  to  enact  it  therein.  .  .  .  There  is  a 
difference  between  an  exception  and  a  limitation.  When 
a  statute  upon  a  subject  of  a  general  nature  is  made  to  ex- 
tend to  the  whole  state  in  one  part  thereof,  and  then  in  an- 
other part  an  attempt  is  made  to  limit  its  operation  to  terri- 
tory less  than  the  state,  the  limitation  may  be  disregarded ; 
because  to  give  it  effect  would  render  the  whole  statute  un- 
constitutional; and  such  construction  should  be  given,  when 
reasonable,  as  will  uphold  the  statute  rather  than  one  which 
would  defeat  it."'69 

The  states  were  authorized  by  an  act  of  congress  to  make 
regulations  relative  to  pilots  in  bays,  inlets,  rivers,  harbors 

«  Kelley  v.  State,  6  Ohio  St.  269.  Wis.  376, 379, 22  N.  W.  572;  Spraigue 

To  same  effect,  Marsh  v.  Hanley,  v.  Thompson,  118  TJ.  S.  90,  30  S.  C. 

111  Cat  368,  4:3  Pac.  975;  Edmonds  Rep.  115.     Contra,  Turner  v.  Fish, 

v.  Herbrandson,  2  N.  I).  270,  50  X.  19Nev.  295,  9  Pac.  884.    See  State 

W.  970,  14  L.  R  A.  725;  Gilreath  v.  v.  Hanger,  5  Ark.  412. 

ville  County,   63  8.  G  75,  10        MState  v.  Buckley,  CO  Ohio  St. 

S.  E.  1028;  State  v.  8  ipervisors,  62  273,  296,  ."".1  X.  E.  272. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    PART.  599 

and  ports  of  the  United  States,  but  they  were  expressly 
prohibited  from  making  any  discriminations  in  the  rate  of 
pilotage  between  vessels  sailing  between  the  ports  of  differ- 
ent states,  and  existing  regulations  making  such  discrimina- 
tions were  annulled  and  abrogated.  A  statute  of  Georgia 
excepted  coasters  in  that  state  and  coasters  between  the 
ports  of  that  state  and  those  of  South  Carolina  and  Florida. 
The  exception  was  held  a  discrimination  within  the  pro- 
hibition, and  the  court  said  if  the  exception  only  is  affected 
the  legislature  of  Georgia  is  made  to  enact  what  confessedly 
it  never  meant,  by  giving  the  statute  an  operation  beyond 
the  limits  specified  by  the  legislature.  The  exception,  there- 
fore, could  not  be  rejected  and  the  remainder  held  valid; 
the  whole  was  treated  as  annulled  and  abrogated.70  An  act 
to  provide  for  free  employment  agencies  contained  a  section 
denying  the  benefit  of  the  act  to  employers  whose  men  were 
out  on  a  strike  or  lockout.  This  exception  was  held  to 
make  the  act  class  legislation  and  void  in  toto,  as  to  strike 
out  the  section  and  leave  the  balance  in  force  would  give 
such  employers  the  benefit  of  the  act,  contrary  to  the  legisla- 
tive intent.71  The  same  holding,  in  substance,  was  made  in 
case  of  the  following  acts:  An  act  which  forbade  peddling 
without  a  license,  but  provided  that  any  resident  of  a  town, 
having  a  place  of  business  therein  and  paying  taxes  to  the 
amount  of  twenty-five  dollars  on  his  stock  in  trade,  might 
peddle  in  his  own  town  without  a  license;72  an  act  making 
eight  hours  a  legal  day's  work  for  all  classes  of  mechanics, 
servants  and  laborers  except  those  engaged  in  farm  or 
domestic  labor;73  an  anti-trust  act  which  excepted  from  the 
operation  of  the  act  agricultural  products  and  live  stock  in 
the  hands  of  the  producer  or  raiser.74 

'OSpraigue  v.  Thompson,  118  U.  S.  Neb.  127,  59  N.  W.  362,  43  Am.  St. 

90,  6  S.  C.  Rep.  988,  30  L.  Ed.  115.  Rep.  670,  24  L.  R.  A.  703. 

71  Mathews  v.  People,  202  III  389,  74Connolly  v.  Union  hewer  Pipe 

67  N.  E.  28.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  540.  22  S.  C.  Rep.  431, 

^State  v.  Mitchell,  97  Me.  66,  53  46  L.  Ed.  679.     In  this  case  the  court 

Atl.  887.  says:  "The  first  section  of  the  act 

«Low  v.  Ress  Printing  Co.,  41  here  in  question  embraces  by  its 


600  3TAT1   us    VOID    IN    PART. 

Two  cases  may  be  noticed  which  seem  to  hold  a  contrary 
doctrine.  An  act  in  relation  to  county  and  township  gov- 
ernment provided  in  section  00  that  county  and  township 
officers  should  be  elected  every  four  years.  The  act  divided 
ooun  ties  into  fifty-three  classes,  and  section  170,  as  construed 
by  the  court,  provided  that  the  officers  in  the  eighth  class 
should  be  elected  every  two  years.  This  was  held  to  de- 
stroy the  uniform  operation  of  the  act  and  to  be  void,  but  it 
was  held  that  it  could  be  stricken  out  and  that  the  general 
provision  could  stand  and  apply  to  all  counties.75  An  act 
forbade  the  use  of  any  product  of  petroleum  for  illuminating 
purposes  which  would  emit  a  combustible  vapor  at  not  less 
than  105°,  except  the  gas  be  generated  in  closed  reservoirs 
outside  of  the  building  to  be  lighted  and  except  the  lighter 
products  of  petroleum  when  used  in  the  AVelsbach  hydro- 
carbon incandescent  lamp.  It  appearing  that  there  were 
other  lamps  constructed  on  the  same  principle  as  the  Wels- 
bach  and  equally  safe,  the  last  exception  was  held  void  as 
conferring  an  exclusive  privilege.  It  had  been  the  policy 
of  legislation  for  twenty-five  years  to  forbid  the  sale  and 
use  of  lighter  products  of  petroleum,  and  this  was  held  to 

terms  all  persons,  nrms.  corpora-  their  products  or  stock  in  hand, 
tions  or  associations  of  persons  who  Looking  then  at  all  the  sections  to- 
combine  their  capital,  skill  or  acts  gether,  we  must  hold  that  the  leg- 
for  any  of  the  purposes  specified,  islature  would  not  have  entered 
while  the  ninth  section  dec-lares  upon  or  continued  the  policy  indi- 
tbat  the  act  shall  not  apply  toagri-  cated  by  the  statute  unless  agricul- 
culturists  or  live-stock  dealers  in  turists  and  live-stock  dealers  were 
respect  of  their  products  or  stock  excluded  from  its  operation  and 
in  hand.  If  the  latter  section  be  thereby  protected  from  prosecu- 
eliminated  as  unconstitutional,  tion.  The  result  is  that  the  statute 
then  the  act,  if  it  stands,  will  apply  must  be  regarded  as  an  entirety, 
to  agriculturists  and  live-stock  and  in  that  view  it  must  be  ad- 
dealers.  These  classes  would  in  judged  to  he  unconstitutional  as 
that  way  be  reached  and  fined,  denying  the  equal  protection  of  the 
when,  evidently,  the  legislature  in-  laws  to  those  within  its  jurisdic- 
tended  that  they  should  not  be  re-  tion  who  are  not  embraced  by  the 
garded  as  offending  against  the  ninth  section."  p. 565. 
law  even  if  they  did  combine  their  7S  Hale  v.  McGettigan,  114  Cal. 
capital,  skill  or  acts  in  respect  of  112,  45  Pac.  1049. 


STATUTES    VOID   IN   PAKT.  601 

show  an  intent  that  the  restriction  should  continue  thouo-h 

O 

the  exception  was  void,  and  the  act  was  held  valid  with  the 
exception  eliminated.76 

A  provision  which  states  a  contingency  on  which  the  act 
is  or  is  not  to  take  effect,  whether  it  be  the  result  of  a  pop- 
ular vote  or  some  other,  is  not  independent  and  separable; 
for  the  intent  of  the  law-maker  is  therein  expressly  declared, 
and  the  statute  cannot  on  principle  take  effect  contrary  to 
that  intent,  though  it  be  expressed  in  a  section  wholly  un- 
constitutional.77 

§  307.  When  act  intended  to  operate  as  a  whole.— If 
the  parts  of  a  statute  are  so  connected  as  to  warrant  the 
conclusion  that  the  legislature  intended  them  as  a  whole, 
and  would  not  have  enacted  the  part  held  valid  alone,  when 
a  part  is  unconstitutional,  they  are  not  separable;  if  one 
part  is  void  the  whole  is  void.78  This  conclusion  should  be 
based  upon  a  consideration  of  the  act  and  a  comparison  of 
its  effects  with  and  without  the  void  part,  by  considering 
the  connection  and  relative  operation  of  the  valid  and  in- 
valid provisions.79  Where  two  provisions  of  a  statute  are 
so  dependent  upon  one  another  that  one  cannot  stand  alone 
without  a  manifest  perversion  of  the  legislative  intent,  and 

76  State  v.  Santee,  111  Iowa,  1,  82  E.  439;  Racier  v.  Township  of 
N.  W.  445,  82  Am.  St,  Rep.  489,  53  Union,  39  N.  J.  L.  509;  Flanagan  v. 
L.  R.  A.  763.  Plainfield,  44  id.  118,  124;  State  v. 

77  Barto  v.  Himrod,  8  N.  Y.  483,  Commissioners,  38  id.  320;  Western 
59  Am.  Dec.  506;  Thorne  v.  Cramer,  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  62  Tex.  630; 
15  Barb.  112;  Parker  v.  Common-  S.  C,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  396: 
wealth,  6  Pa.  St.  507,  47  Am.  Dec.  Childs  v.  Shower,  18  Iowa,  261;  La- 
480;  Meshmeier  v.  State,  11  Ind.  throp  v.  Mills,  19  Cal.  513:  Central 
482;  Lathrop  v.  Mills,  19  Cal.  513.  Br.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Atchi- 
See  Santo  v.  State,  2  Iowa,  165,  63  son,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Kan.  453; 
Am.  Dec.  487;  State  v.  Copeland,  3  S.  C,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  528; 
R-  I-  33.  Moore  v.  New  Orleans,  32  La.  Ann. 

7«Eckhart  v.  State,  5  W.  Va.  515;  726;  Robinson  v.  Bidwell,  22  Cal. 

Warren  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  2  Graj%  84;  379. 

State   v.   Sinks,  42  Ohio  St.   345;  ™  Robinson  v.  Bidwell,  23  Cal.  379: 

People  ex  rel.  v.  Cooper,  83  111.  595;  Sumter  Co.  v.  Gainsville  Nat,  Bank, 

Hinze  v.   People,  92  id.   406,  424;  62  Ala,  464,  34  Am.  Rep.  30. 
State  v.  Pugh,  43  Ohio  St.  98,  1  N. 


602  MA  I  r  IKS    VOID    IN    TAKT. 

the  other  is  void,  the  whole  act  is  void.80  Whore  one  act  is 
dependent  upon  another,  which  is  held  invalid,  both  fall.81 
§  308.  Miscellaneous  acts  held  severable. —  An  act  for 
the  incorporation  and  government  of  banks  contained  an 
invalid  provision  exempting  stockholders  from  liability.  It 
was  held  that  this  could  be  rejected  and  the  balance  sus- 
tained.82 In  an  act  which  provides  for  the  establishment  of 
new  roads  and  an  improvement  of  roads  already  established, 
an  invalid  provision  for  condemning  the  right  of  way  for 
new  roads  will  not  affect  the  part  as  to  the  improvement  of 
roads.83  A  revenue  act  contained  a  provision  that,  in  coun- 
ties of  125,000  inhabitants  or  over,  the  aggregate  rate  of 
taxation  should  not  exceed  five  per  cent,  on  the  assessed 
value  of  the  property,  and  that  county,  municipal  and  school 
taxes  should  be  scaled  j>ro  rata,  if  necessary,  so  as  to  bring 
the  aggregate  rate  of  the  county  within  this  limit.  This 
provision  was  held  to  be  invalid  and  severable.84  An  ap- 
propriation bill  provided  for  certain  salaries  payable  out  of 
eneral  school  fund.  The  legislature  had  no  power  to 
make  them  so  payable,  but  it  was  held  that  these  words 
could  be  rejected  and  the  remainder  stand,  the  effect  of 
which  was  to  make  the  salaries  payable  out  of  the  general 
fund.*'  An  act  provided  for  the  appointment  of  three  elec- 
tion  commissioners  by  the  governor  and  required  him  to 

so  Burkholtz  v.  State,  16  Lea,  71.  U.  S.  601,  15  S.   G  Rep.  912,  39  L. 

And  see   generally  the  following  Ed.  1108. 

cases  in  which  the  entire  act  was  81  Ballentine   v.  Willey,  3  Idaho, 

held  void:  Yerby  v.  Cochrane,  101  496,  21   Pac.  994;  People  v.  Olsen, 

Ala.    541,    14    So.    355;    People    v.  204  111.  494, 68  N.  E.  376. 

Knopf.  198  111.310.04  N.   E.  1127;  8*McGowan    v.    McDonald,    111 

State  v.  Walker,  105  La.  492,  29  So.  Cal.  57,  43  Pac.  418, 52  Am.  St.  Rep. 

973;  Trumble  v.  Trumble,  37  Neb.  149;  Murphy  v.   Pacific  Bank,  119 

340,  55  N.  W.  869;  State  v.  Stewart,  Cal.  334,  51  Pac.  317. 

52  Nel».  243,  71  N.  W.  998;  State  v.  »» Seanor   v.    County  Com'rs,  13 

all,  67  N.  J.  L.  148,  50  Atl.  364;  Wash.  48,  42  Pac.  552. 

Angell    v.  Casa   County.  11    N.  D.  Hi  People  v.  Knopf,  183  111.  410,  5G 

265,  91  X.  W.  72:  Skagit  County  v.  N.  E.  155. 

Stiles,  10  Wash.  388,  39  Pac.  116;  ^State  v.   Westerfield,  23   Nev. 

Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L  &  T.  Co.,  158  168,  49  Pac.  119. 


STATUTES    VOID    IN    I>ART. 


603 


appoint  one  from  three  persons  to  be  named  by  a  party 
central  committee.  This  requirement  was  held  void  and 
severable  and  the  remainder  of  the  act  valid.86  An  act  cre- 
ating a  city  court  provided  that  cases  in  which  the  amount 
involved  was  not  over  $50  should  be  tried  without  a  jury. 
This  was  contrary  to  the  constitution,  which  guarantied  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases.  The  provision  was  held 
severable  and  the  remainder  of  the  act  valid.87  Some  addi- 
tional cases  are  referred  to  in  the  margin.88 


86  State  v.  Washburn,  167  Mo.  680, 
67  S.  W.  592,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  430. 

87Mattox  v.  State,  115  Ga.  212,41 
S.  E.  709.  The  court  says:  "The 
main  purpose  of  the  act  was  to 
create  a  court  of  the  character 
above  referred  to.  The  manner  of 
trial  to  be  followed  in  that  court  in 
cases  of  trifling  importance,  em- 
bracing unquestionably  a  very 
small  part  of  the  cases  falling 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court, 
was  merely  a  matter  of  minor  de- 
tail. To  hold  the  section  unconsti- 
tutional which  takesaway  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury  in  suits  for  fifty 
dollars  or  less  would  not  in  any  ma- 
terial or  substantial  way  disturb 
the  general  scheme  of  the  act;  for 
the  effect  of  such  a  ruling  would  be 
simply  to  eliminate  from  the  act 
the  paragraph  in  question  and 
make  applicable  to  the  cases  re- 
ferred to  in  the  paragraph  the  other 
provisions  of  the  act  in  reference  to 
trial  by  jury.  No  further  legislation 
would  be  required,  and  the  practice 
and  procedure  of  the  court  would 
not  be  in  any  material  respect  al- 
tered. Viewing  the  act  as  a  whole 
we  do  not  think  that  portion  which, 
if  valid,  would  have  resulted  in  a 


deprivation  of  the  right  of  jury 
trial  in  such  a  small  and  compara- 
tively insignificant  class  of  cases, 
when  it  is  provided  for  all  other 
classes  of  cases,  and  when  the 
method  and  machinery  for  obtain- 
ing juries  is  provided,  is  such  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  scheme  of  the  act 
creating  the  court  as  that  its  with- 
drawal from  the  act  would  have  the 
effect  to  render  the  entire  act  void. 
The  effect  of  this  ruling  is  to  give 
to  litigants  in  all  cases  in  the  city 
court  of  Valdosta  the  right  to  de- 
mand a  trial  by  jury;  or,  in  other 
words,  to  give  to  litigants  in  that 
court,  in  suits  involving  fifty  dol- 
lars or  less,  the  same  rights  with 
respect  to  jury  trial  as  are  provided 
by  the  act  for  litigants  in  other 
cases."    pp.  216,217. 

88  Harper  v.  State,  109  Ala.  28,  19 
So.  857;  Townsend  v.  State,  147  Ind. 
624,  47  N.  E.  19,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  477, 
37  L.  R,  A.  294;  Rodman-Heath 
Cotton  Mills  v.  Waxhaw,  180  N.  C. 
293,  41  S.  E.  488;  Trimble  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 96  Va.  818,  32  S.  E.  786; 
State  v.  Sullivan,  72  Minn.  126,  75 
N.  W.  8;  State  v.  Duluth  Gas  & 
Water  Co.,  76  Minn.  96,  78  N.  W. 
1032. 


»r*r~      LAW  LIBRARY 


LOS  ANGELES 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  826  089    5 


